Case ID:186034

Evans Oduor v Republic [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Revision E338 of 2021

Parties:

Evans Oduor v Republic

Date Delivered:

16 Nov 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Lilian Nabwire Mutende

Citation:

Evans Oduor v Republic [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Ms. Ndombi for the State

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Nairobi

Advocates:

Ms. Ndombi for the State

History Advocates:

One party or some parties represented

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

CRIMINAL DIVISION

CRIMINAL REVISION E338 OF 2021

EVANS ODUOR…………………………….......………………APPLICANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC…………….……………………………….…….RESPONDENT

RULING

1.

Evans Oduor,

the applicant, was convicted by the lower court for the offence of defilement and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment. His first appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial court. Aggrieved, he preferred a second appeal to the Court of Appeal which was dismissed on 10

th

July, 2020.

2. On 10

th

August, 2021, he approached this court through an application seeking revision in order for the court to take into account the period he stayed in remand custody pursuant to the provisions of

Section 333 (2

) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. The Respondent filed grounds of opposition where it stated that the application is an abuse of the court process as the court is functus officio.

4. Revisionary Jurisdiction cannot be invoked where a party has filed an appeal. The appellant’s appeal was heard and determined to finality therefore issues raised cannot arise. This court would therefore not have Jurisdiction to determine the matter as it is functus officio.

5. The Supreme Court expounding on the doctrine of functus officio in

Raila Odinga & Others vs. IEBC & Others [2013] eklr

citing with approval an excerpt from an article by Daniel Malan Pretorius, in

“The Origins of the functus officio Doctrine, with Specific Reference to its Application in Administrative Law,” (2005) 122 SALJ 832

stated thus: -

“

The functus officio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by means of which the law gives expression to the principle of finality. According to this doctrine, a person who is vested with adjudicative or decision-making powers may, as a general rule, exercise those powers only once in relation to the same matter.… The [principle] is that once such a decision has been given, it is (subject to any right of appeal to a superior body or functionary) final and conclusive. Such a decision cannot be revoked or varied by the decision-maker.”

6. The upshot of the above is that this court being functus officio is not seized of jurisdiction to determine the matter. In the result, the application fails and is struck out.

7. It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY,

THIS 16

TH

DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

L. N. MUTENDE

JUDGE

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

Court Assistant – Mutai

Applicant

Ms. Ndombi for the State