Amati v Republic of Kenya/ODDP (Criminal Revision E043 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11722 (KLR) (Crim) (23 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11722 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION E043 OF 2026 AM MUTETI, J JULY 23, 2026 BETWEEN AGNES TERESIA JAMES AMATI ......................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC OF KENYA/ODDP ......................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant by way of a certificate of urgency moved this court seeking a sentence review arguing that she has been in custody for a period 22 years which she contends is exceeds by far the period that would be imposed under current sentencing jurisprudence having convicted and sentenced for the ofience of murder. 2. The applicant was convicted for the ofience of murder and sentenced to death which was later commuted under presidential decree to life imprisonment. 3. Following the conviction and sentence the applicant appealed against both conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal which heard and dismissed her appeal. 4. The applicant did not anchor her application on any known provision of the law thus the court treated the application as a revision intended to be anchored on the provisions of Article 165(6) of the Constitution. 5. The applicant pleaded with this court to review the sentence stating that she had reformed and that she had acquired useful skills in life that would make her a better person if she were to be released back to society. 6. The respondent through Mr. Mogere prosecution counsel argued that this court jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the fact that the applicant had been to the court of appeal vide https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11722/eng@2026-07-23 1
page 1 of 2
Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2008 and later to this court before the honorable Justice Bwonwong’a vide Misc. Criminal Application No. 416 of 2018 seeking review of the sentence which the honorable Justice Bwonwong’a declined citing want of jurisdiction. 7. According to Mr. Mogere by presenting yet another application seeking similar orders the applicant is engaging in what could aptly be described as abuse of process and a wasteful exercise of judicial time. 8. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines abuse of process as the improper and tortious use of a legitimately issued court process to obtain a result that is either unlawful or beyond the scope of the process. See Hassan N. Charo v. Khatib Mwashetani & Others [2014] eKLR, where the Supreme Court adopted Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “abuse of scope…” process to obtain a result that is either unlawful or beyond the process or process”, as “improper and tortious use of a legitimately issued court 9. The applicant is clearly bent on vexing the court by filing a similar application to that earlier on delivered by the Hon Justice M. Bwonong’a thus the intention is to vex the court in the faint hope of convincing a judge of this court some day to review her sentence. 10. The court cannot reopen a matter that had already been decided by the Court of Appeal and a judge of this court exercising concurrent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is everything and without it this court would be embarking on an exercise in futility. This court is guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KECA 48 (KLR) and hereby determines that it lacks jurisdiction to reopen the matter. 11. The application is therefore dismissed on that ground. 12. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 2026. A. M. MUTETI JUDGE In the presence of: Court Assistant: Habiba Applicant - present Mogere for Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11722/eng@2026-07-23 2
page 2 of 2