[2020] KEHC 7218 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 7218 (KLR)

The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner for robbery with violence was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu and its application to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. In resentencing, the court considered the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, the period...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 7218 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: David Elokita; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Petition 23 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Resentencing Following Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Penalty
Outcome
Death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 25 years imprisonment from date of original sentence.
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Robbery With Violence, Mandatory Sentencing, Resentencing Guidelines, Mitigating Factors, Death Penalty, Constitutional Rights
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Robbery With Violence Mandatory Sentencing Resentencing Guidelines Mitigating Factors Death Penalty Constitutional Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Elokita

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Resentencing Following Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Penalty

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner upon setting aside the mandatory death penalty.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner for robbery with violence was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu and its application to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. In resentencing, the court considered the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, the period already served (15 years), the petitioner's exemplary prison record, and the seriousness of the offence, including the loss of life. The court determined that the period served was insufficient given the gravity of the crime and set aside the death sentence, substituting it with a custodial sentence of 25 years imprisonment commencing from the original sentencing date.

Court Disposition

Death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 25 years imprisonment from date of original sentence.

Orders

  • The sentence of death imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
  • The petitioner is resentenced to serve twenty five (25) years imprisonment commencing from 29/9/2005.