[2020] KEHC 7944 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had served 17 years in prison for robbery with violence and rape, had exhausted all avenues of appeal, and had demonstrated significant rehabilitation through vocational training and good conduct. The court determined that continued incarceration would not serve the interests of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7944 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Donald Majiwa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 291 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Resentencing Application Ruling
- Outcome
- application for resentencing allowed; applicant discharged
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Robbery With Violence, Rape, Penal Code Section 296 2, Penal Code Section 140, Rehabilitation
- 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
Donald Majiwa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Resentencing Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to resentencing after serving 17 years in prison for robbery with violence and rape.
- 2 Whether the period already served is sufficient in light of the applicant's rehabilitation and conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had served 17 years in prison for robbery with violence and rape, had exhausted all avenues of appeal, and had demonstrated significant rehabilitation through vocational training and good conduct. The court determined that continued incarceration would not serve the interests of justice or society, as the applicant is now more likely to contribute positively to the community. The period already served was deemed sufficient punishment, and the applicant was ordered to be discharged.
Court Disposition
application for resentencing allowed; applicant discharged
Orders
- The 18 years period the applicant has served in prison is sufficient.
- Applicant is hereby discharged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISC.APPL NO.291 OF 2018
DONALD MAJIWA.............................................................PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is a ruling on application for resentencing. The applicant was charged and convicted off the offence of Robbery with Violence Contrary to Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code and Rape Contrary Section 140 of the Penal Code (repealed). He was sentenced together with two co-accused to death for robbery with violence and 10 years imprisonment for rape. The applicant has exhausted his right of appeal by filing appeal in both the High Court and Court of Appeal.
2. The Nakuru Prison in Charge wrote a recommendation later dated 4th October 2019 confirming that the applicant has exhausted his right of appeal and that by the time he was writing recommendation letter, he had served in prison for 17 years. He further stated that the applicant’s conduct has changed and has fruitfully engaged in various trainings and attained grade one, two and three of carpentry and joinery. He attached certificates issued to the letter.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
3. From the contents of the letter by in charge prison, the applicant has reformed. He has attained trainings, which will enable him engage in gainful activities, which will benefit himself, family and the community.
4. Having served in prison for a period of 17 years and in view of trainings the applicant has obtained, it is unlikely that he will engage in any criminal activities again. He will be more useful to the country while out of prison than when in prison. He will contribute to the country instead of the country country incurring expenses keeping him in prison.
5. My view is that the period he has already served in prison is sufficient.
6. FINAL ORDER
1. That the 18 years period the applicant has served in prison is sufficient.
2. Applicant is hereby discharged.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 20th day of February, 2020
.....................................
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
Schola – Court Assistant
Rita for State
Accused in person