[2018] KEHC 1655 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 1655 (KLR)

The court, considering the Supreme Court's pronouncement that the death penalty is not mandatory for robbery with violence, exercised its discretion to impose a custodial sentence. The court took into account the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the complainant was injured, and the mitigation offered by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 1655 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Calistus Musanyi Makotsi; Appellant: Alexander Andola Makotsi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 127 & 128 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Resentencing After Appeal and Mitigation
Outcome
appellants resentenced to thirty years imprisonment each, sentence to run from date of conviction
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Discretion, Mitigation, Death Penalty, Penal Code Interpretation
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Robbery With Violence Sentencing Discretion Mitigation Death Penalty Penal Code Interpretation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calistus Musanyi Makotsi

Appellant

Alexander Andola Makotsi

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Resentencing After Appeal and Mitigation

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should be resentenced following the Supreme Court decision on the mandatory nature of the death penalty.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code after mitigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court, considering the Supreme Court's pronouncement that the death penalty is not mandatory for robbery with violence, exercised its discretion to impose a custodial sentence. The court took into account the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the complainant was injured, and the mitigation offered by the appellants. Balancing these factors, the court found that a sentence of thirty years imprisonment was appropriate and proportionate, to run from the date of conviction by the lower court.

Court Disposition

appellants resentenced to thirty years imprisonment each, sentence to run from date of conviction

Orders

  • The appellants, Calistus Musanyi Makotsi and Alexander Andola Makotsi, are sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment each, effective from 28th August 2014.