Two Iranian sentenced for a 15-year jail term at Kamiti Maximum prison for planning a terror attack in Nairobi, have lost a bid to have their sentences reduced.
Ahmed Abolfathi and Mansour Mousavi had applied for re-look at their sentence.
However, High court Judge Lilian Mutende dismissed the application on grounds that the court lacked powers to re-examine issues that have already been dealt with by other courts.
Justice Mutende in her ruling said the question of the sentence was raised on appeal.
She cited Kimaru’s decision in which he stated with clarity that he had taken into consideration the time that the duo had spent in custody.
“The Supreme Court held the same view when the matter was appealed.
“Therefore this court cannot purport to interrogate the decision reached as the issues have already been dealt with,” said Mutende.
The duo were set free in January after the Court of Appeal quashed their 15-year jail term stating that there was not sufficient evidence to link them to the bomb-making material recovered in 2012.
The two had been accused of possessing a lethal explosive identified as RDX and a Nairobi court sentenced them to life imprisonment but it was reduced to 15-years after an appeal at the High Court.
The sentence was later quashed on the second appeal on grounds that there was not sufficient evidence to link them to the bomb-making material recovered in 2012.
The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) then lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court and the court upheld the decision of High court Judge Kimaru.
The two subsequently approached the constitutional court to consider re-sentencing.
Their main contention was that Justice Kimaru may have made an error when he stated that he had considered the period they were in remand custody from June 16, 2012 before they were convicted but went ahead to order that the sentence would take effect from the date they were convicted by the trial court on May 6, 2013, a fact that was observed by the court of appeal and not faulted by the supreme court.
On its part, the state submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.