[2018] KEHC 5654 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 5654 (KLR)

The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis K. Muruatetu & Another v Republic, the mandatory death sentence under Section 204 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional to the extent of its mandatory nature. This principle extends to other provisions such as Section 296(2). As the State did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 5654 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Dickson Okello Ouko; Respondent: The Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Petition 11 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Application for Resentencing
Outcome
Application for resentencing allowed; matter remitted to trial court for rehearing on sentence.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Death Sentence, Resentencing, Penal Code Section 204, Penal Code Section 296 2, Constitutional Invalidity, Supreme Court Precedent
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Mandatory Death Sentence Resentencing Penal Code Section 204 Penal Code Section 296 2 Constitutional Invalidity Supreme Court Precedent

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dickson Okello Ouko

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Ruling on Application for Resentencing

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence under Section 204 and Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the invalidation of the mandatory death sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis K. Muruatetu & Another v Republic, the mandatory death sentence under Section 204 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional to the extent of its mandatory nature. This principle extends to other provisions such as Section 296(2). As the State did not oppose the application, and in light of the binding precedent, the petitioner's application for resentencing must be allowed. The matter is remitted to the trial court for rehearing on sentence and possible variation of the death sentence, pending the availability of the original lower court file.

Court Disposition

Application for resentencing allowed; matter remitted to trial court for rehearing on sentence.

Orders

  • The original lower court file to be returned to the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Homa Bay for rehearing on sentence and variation of the death sentence if necessary by any magistrate with competent jurisdiction.
  • The original file to be availed on 28/6/18 for mention to confirm compliance.