[2021] KEHC 5274 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 5274 (KLR)

The court held that, following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional, and the court is empowered to resentence the appellant. Considering the heinous nature of the offence, the use of actual violence, the injury to a victim, and the value...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 5274 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Alex Ochieng; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 133 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Resentencing Application After Dismissal of Initial Appeal
Outcome
resentencing granted; custodial sentence imposed
Legal Topics
Robbery With Violence, Resentencing, Mandatory Sentencing, Constitutional Rights, Rehabilitation, Sentencing Guidelines
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Robbery With Violence Resentencing Mandatory Sentencing Constitutional Rights Rehabilitation Sentencing Guidelines

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Ochieng

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Resentencing Application After Dismissal of Initial Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to resentence where an earlier appeal was dismissed by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sentence for the appellant given the circumstances of the offence and time served.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional, and the court is empowered to resentence the appellant. Considering the heinous nature of the offence, the use of actual violence, the injury to a victim, and the value of property stolen, but also taking into account the appellant's rehabilitation and the 13 years already served, a definite custodial sentence of 20 years imprisonment, to run from the date of arrest, is appropriate and commensurate with the offence committed.

Court Disposition

resentencing granted; custodial sentence imposed

Orders

  • The appellant is resentenced to 20 years imprisonment to run from the date of arrest, 9/6/2007.
  • The petition of appeal dated 23.12.2019 is dismissed.