[2021] KEHC 2151 (KLR)
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, which declared mandatory death sentences unconstitutional, was expressly limited to murder cases under section 204 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court's subsequent clarification in 2021 reaffirmed that the Muruatetu principles do not extend...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2151 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Caleb Namai Akhala; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition E013 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
- Outcome
- petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Jurisdiction of High Court, Robbery With Violence, Sentence Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Caleb Namai Akhala
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review a sentence for robbery with violence based on the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu?
- 2 Does the Muruatetu decision on mandatory sentences apply to offences other than murder, specifically robbery with violence?
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, which declared mandatory death sentences unconstitutional, was expressly limited to murder cases under section 204 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court's subsequent clarification in 2021 reaffirmed that the Muruatetu principles do not extend to other offences with mandatory sentences, such as robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or alter sentences for robbery with violence based on the Muruatetu decision. The petition was therefore struck out as incompetent, and the file ordered closed.
Court Disposition
petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The petition is struck out as incompetent.
- The file is closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. EO13 OF 2020
(Formerly Kisumu Criminal Petition No. 60 of 2020)
CALEB NAMAI AKHALA..............................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.......................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter was placed before me for the purpose of giving directions, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ), with respect to mandatory sentences, where it was clarified that the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), had arisen from proceedings relating to murder, under section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, and the position stated in the said decision was intended to apply only to mandatory sentences with respect to murder cases.
2. The petition herein is dated 6th August 2020, and was lodged in court on even date. It principally rides on Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), for the petitioner seeks review of his sentence, where he had been convicted of robbery with violence, contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, in Mumias PMCCRC No. 1467 of 2005, and was sentenced to death. He lodged appeals in Kakamega HCCRA No. 51 of 2006 and Kisumu CACRA No. 151 of 2014, all of which were dismissed, save that the Court of Appeal substituted the death sentence with a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment.
3. The offence, the subject of the instant proceedings, is not murder, but robbery with violence, as defined in section 296(2) of the Penal Code, the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), therefore, does not apply to it. As a consequence, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence that was imposed by the trial court, given in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ). Since there is no jurisdiction on my part to entertain the petition, I shall strike it out, for it is incompetent. The said file shall be closed.
4. The Deputy Registrar shall cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the petitioner and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Kakamega.
PREPARED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 15th DAY OF November 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE