[2019] KEHC 4507 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 4507 (KLR)

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic, the mandatory nature of the death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional. However, the court retains discretion to impose an appropriate sentence after considering the circumstances of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 4507 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Collins Jemanga; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 233 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed_in_part
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Principles, Mandatory Sentences, Constitutional Rights, Appeals, Mitigation
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Robbery With Violence Sentencing Principles Mandatory Sentences Constitutional Rights Appeals Mitigation

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collins Jemanga

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is constitutional in light of recent jurisprudence.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly harsh and excessive.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sentence for the appellant given the circumstances of the offence and the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic, the mandatory nature of the death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional. However, the court retains discretion to impose an appropriate sentence after considering the circumstances of the offence and any mitigating factors. In this case, the court determined that a custodial sentence of twenty years was sufficient to meet the objectives of sentencing, including retribution, rehabilitation, and reformation, given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's circumstances. The death sentence was therefore set aside and substituted with a term of twenty...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed_in_part

Orders

  • The death sentence imposed on the appellant is reversed and set aside.
  • The appellant is sentenced to a term of twenty (20) years' imprisonment from the date of conviction.