REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

 AT NAIROBI

CRIMINAL DIVISION - MILIMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 381 OF 2021

LUCY CATHERINE MUTITU.......................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC...................................................................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. Lucy Catherine Mutitu, the applicant, was arraigned in court having contravened the law. Upon arraignment she pleaded guilty to three (3) counts of obtaining money by false pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code and three (3) counts of personating a public officer contrary to Section 105(b) of the Penal Code.  She was sentenced to serve two(2) years imprisonment on each count of obtaining money by false pretence and to pay a fine of  fifty thousand (Ksh. 50,000/-) and in default to serve twelve (12) months’ imprisonment for the offence of personation. Sentences were to run consecutively. 

2. Through an application filed in Criminal Revision No. E 072 of 2021, the applicant herein sought revision of the sentence meted out by the lower court, an application that was dismissed by this court.

3. In the instant application the applicant seeks review of the sentence so that the sentences can run concurrently. The issue raised cannot arise because this court adjudicated on it to finality therefore it cannot revisit it. This court would therefore not have Jurisdiction to determine the matter as it is functus officio.

4. 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.”

5. 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.

6. It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022.

L. N. MUTENDE

JUDGE

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

Applicant

Ms. Ntabo for the State/ODPP

Court Assistant – Mutai