Lokitol v Republic (Revision Case E013 of 2021)  KEHC 16991 (KLR) (20 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:  KEHC 16991 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Revision Case E013 of 2021
GWN Macharia, J
December 20, 2022
1.The Applicant, Joseph Lokitol, was charged, tried and convicted for the offence of rape contrary to Section 3 (1) (a) (b) (3) of the Sexual Offences Act in Naivasha Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. 15 of 2017. He was thereafter sentenced to serve twelve years imprisonment on June 25, 2017. Aggrieved by both his conviction and sentence, he appealed to this court vide Naivasha HC Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2017. The appeal was heard and dismissed by my brother Justice R. Mwongo.
2.The Applicant has now approached this court vide a document titled Memorandum of Sentence Review seeking for review of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The application is supported by the Applicant’s self-sworn Affidavit in which he avers that he was a first offender. He is remorseful for the offence and is ready to reconcile with the complainant. Further, he avers that he comes from a poor background and was the sole breadwinner of his young family of three children who he believes are undergoing great difficulty due to his incarceration. He also states that in the three years that he has been in custody, he has been well rehabilitated as he has trained in biblical courses and acquired various skills such as shoe making and repair as well as poultry farming and intends to use the said skills in nation building if given a chance to go back to the society. He therefore urges for reduction of the twelve years' sentence or substitution of the same with a non-custodial sentence.
3.In her written submissions filed herein, learned State Counsel, Ms. Serling, for the Respondent opposed the application and submitted that the circumstances under which the offence was committed called for a stiff sentence. She also noted that no efforts have been made by the Appellant to reconcile with the victim's family.
4.When affirming the sentence imposed on the Applicant herein by the trial court on appeal, Justice Mwongo held as follows:
5.Noting the history of the Applicant’s case, it is my considered view that this court cannot review Mwongo, J’s judgment as doing so would be tantamount to sitting on appeal against a court of concurrent jurisdiction. If the Applicant was not satisfied with the High Court’s decision on appeal, he should have escalated the same to the Court of Appeal instead of coming to the same court for review of sentence.
6.I am persuaded by the case of Daniel Otieno Oracha v Republic  eKLR where the Petitioner had applied for review of a sentence imposed by a court of concurrent jurisdiction and the Court observed that:
7.Further, in John Kagunda Kariuki v Republic  eKLR, Ngugi J. held as follows.
8.Consequently, the Applicant’s application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIVASHA THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022.G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIAJUDGEIn the presence of :Applicant in person..Mr.Michuki for the Respondent.