The High Court in Garissa has declined an application by Jamila Maalim Hussein Eymoi seeking early release or a non-custodial sentence, ruling that it lacks the authority to revisit a sentence it had already determined on appeal.
The case stems from serious criminal charges dating back to April 20, 2021, when the applicant was arrested in Mandera East Sub-County while in possession of an AK-47 rifle loaded with 13 rounds of ammunition without a valid firearm certificate.
She was also charged with unlawful possession of ammunition and entering Kenya through an undesignated border point along the Kenya-Somalia border.
Following trial at the Mandera Law Courts, she was convicted on two counts—possession of a firearm and ammunition—and sentenced to 20 years and 10 years imprisonment respectively, while being acquitted on the immigration-related charge.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, she appealed to the High Court, which reviewed the case and reduced the 20-year sentence to 7 years while maintaining the 10-year sentence for the second count.
The court further ordered that the sentences run concurrently from August 1, 2022, effectively lowering her total custodial period.
However, in her latest application dated February 11, 2025, the applicant sought further leniency, requesting that the remaining portion of her sentence—approximately two years—be waived or converted into a probationary term.
In her plea, she emphasized that she had shown remorse, undergone rehabilitation, and was a first-time offender deserving of a second chance.
She also highlighted her personal circumstances, stating that she is a mother of five young children aged between 2 and 9 years, who depend on her for care and support.
Additionally, she argued that the court should consider the time she had already spent in custody prior to sentencing, invoking Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Her legal team further relied on provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, urging the court to exercise its discretion under Article 165 of the Constitution to allow her to serve the remainder of her sentence outside prison.
However, the prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the High Court had already exercised its appellate jurisdiction in the matter and could not reopen the case.
The state maintained that the court had become “functus officio”—a legal principle meaning that once a court has made a final decision, it cannot revisit or alter it except through a higher appellate process.
In its ruling, the High Court agreed with the prosecution, emphasizing that it had already reviewed and adjusted the sentence during the appeal process.
The judge noted that any dissatisfaction with the revised sentence should have been pursued at the Court of Appeal, not through a fresh application before the same court.
The court reaffirmed that once a sentence has been pronounced and an appeal determined, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain further requests for sentence reduction or alteration.
While acknowledging the applicant’s arguments regarding rehabilitation, family responsibilities, and time served, the court held that these factors could not override the principle of finality in judicial decisions.
The ruling effectively closes the door on her attempt to secure early release through the High Court, leaving the Court of Appeal as the only remaining avenue for further legal redress.
The decision underscores a key principle in Kenya’s legal system—that courts must operate within clearly defined jurisdictional limits, even in cases where humanitarian considerations are presented.
It also highlights the seriousness with which Kenyan courts treat firearm-related offences, particularly in border regions where security concerns remain high.
For the applicant, the outcome means she will continue serving her sentence as previously determined, unless a higher court intervenes.
For the wider public, the case serves as a reminder that while the justice system allows for appeals and sentence reviews, there are strict procedural boundaries that cannot be bypassed.
