1.By a Petition filed on 16.6.2022 under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner sought for leniency on the sentence of 10 years imposed upon him by a Judgment delivered on 8.12.2018 by Hon. Lady Justice R. Ougo.
2.The grounds of the Petition are that the Petitioner was arrested, arraigned in Court tried and convicted of the charge of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve 10 years’ imprisonment. He stated that he was remorseful for his involvement in the offence. He further stated that he was transformed and rehabilitated in general character and spiritually ready to integrate with family members and the society for better development of the nation. He stated that he suffered from epilepsy which ought to be taken care of by his family. He urged the Court to take into account the time already served in custody before the sentence was imposed in line with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He cited the case of Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic, Court of Appeal Criminal Case No. 78 of 2009 where the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence by the time served in custody. He also cited the case of George Marwa Chacha v Republic, Petition No. 42 of 2019, Criminal Case No. 43 of 2005 at Kisii High Court where the Court sentenced the accused person to serve 25 years imprisonment which sentence was to run from the period spent in custody and the remand period. He orally urged the Court to consider the period he had spent in custody and prayed for resentencing.
3.The Respondent opposed the Application. Mr. Ochengo, State Counsel, submitted that the Petitioner was applying for review of a sentence by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
4.I have considered the Petition and the Parties’ Submissions. To my mind, the Petitioner is seeking for the substantive order that the sentence imposed include the period he spent in custody; and that the Court proceeds to resentence him on that account.
5.Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows :-
6.Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides thus: -
7.In the case of Reuben Mwangi Nguri v Republic  eKLR, the Court went into great detail in defining and delineating the constructs of revision. The Court cited the case of Kiwala v Uganda 1967 EA 758 where the Court held “Once a case has been revised by the High Court becomes functus officio and that the revision is final unless there is an appeal to the court of appeal.”
8.In the case of Uganda v Polasi as cited in the case of Reuben Mwangi Nguri v Republic (Supra) held:
9.The Court further cited the case of REX v Compensation Appeal Tribunal 1952 1KB 338-347 where the English Court of Appeal held as follows: -
10.It then follows that I cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction over a Court with concurrent jurisdiction. While I appreciate the Petitioner’s right under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I cannot revise the orders of a Court with concurrent jurisdiction. (See Antony Nyaga Njagi v Republic  eKLR; Elishipha Muthoni v Republic  eKLR; and Stephen Kathuri Kimotho & 2 Others v Republic  eKLR
11.Indeed, Article 165 (3) (6) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. The Applicant’s prayers would be better suited to be placed before the Court of Appeal.
12.I have also noted that before petitioner was sentenced the Hon. Judge considered that he was in custody for 5 years before he was released on bond.
13.The remand period was considered as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. I therefore find no merit in the petition and I decline to review the sentence as passed by a court of concurrent Jurisdiction.