[2020] KEHC 8233 (KLR)
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, mandatory minimum and maximum sentences are unconstitutional, and sentencing discretion must be exercised based on the circumstances of each case. The petitioner, having served 10 years in custody, was a first offender and had demonstrated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8233 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Elijah Ponge Oteng; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 70 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Resentencing After Conviction and Partial Sentence Served
- Outcome
- petition allowed; petitioner re-sentenced to period already served
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Sexual Offences Act, Mandatory Sentencing, Judicial Discretion, Mitigation, Custodial Period Credit
- 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
Elijah Ponge Oteng
Petitioner
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Resentencing After Conviction and Partial Sentence Served
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision on mandatory sentences.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner on the rape conviction under the Sexual Offences Act, considering time served and mitigating factors.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, mandatory minimum and maximum sentences are unconstitutional, and sentencing discretion must be exercised based on the circumstances of each case. The petitioner, having served 10 years in custody, was a first offender and had demonstrated efforts at rehabilitation. The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the psychological impact on the complainant and the petitioner's reformation. Applying the Sentencing Policy Guidelines and the requirement to credit time served, the court determined that the period already served was sufficient punishment and re-sentenced the petitioner accordingly.
Court Disposition
petition allowed; petitioner re-sentenced to period already served
Orders
- The petitioner is re-sentenced to the period already served on the rape conviction.
- The petitioner is to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
(CORAM: CHERERE-J)
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 70 OF 2019
BETWEEN
ELIJAH PONGE OTENG...............................................................PETITIONER
AND
REPUBLIC....................................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
Introduction
1. On 23rd March, 2010, the trial court in KISUMU CRIMINAL CASE NO.32 OF 2010, convicted and sentenced the Petitioner to death on one count of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2)of the Penal Code and to 20 years’ imprisonment on one count of rape contrary to section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act. The death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. Petitioner lodged an appeal KISUMUHIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2010which was dismissed on 06th March, 2012 and the sentence in the offence of robbery with violence was substituted with a 12-year sentence which he has, subject to remission already served. There is evidence that the Petitioner did not appeal to the Court of Appeal.
2. By a petition filed on 18th September, 2019, the Petitioner has petitioned this court for resentencing in the second count.
3. Ms. Gathu, learned counsel for the state submitted that the petition was not opposed and proposed that the Petitioner be sentenced to an imprisonment term of 18 years for the reason that the complainant was raped in a room in the same house where her other relatives were.
Analysis and Determination
4. Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act under which the Petitioner was charged and convicted provides that:
(1)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.
5. The trial court in its wisdom enhanced the sentence to 20 years which is lawful.
6. The Supreme Court’s decision in Francis KariokiMuruatetu& Another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR declaring the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional has necessitated resentencing of all persons previously sentenced to the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences.
7. I have considered The Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016and its application which is intended to promote transparency, consistency and fairness in sentencing (See Michael Kathewa Laichena & another v Republic [2018] eKLR).
8. In Dismas Wafula Kilwake v Republic [2018] eKLR, the Court of Appeal observed as follows:
[W]e hold that the provisions of section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act must be interpreted so as not to take away the discretion of the court in sentencing. Those provisions are indicative of the seriousness with which the Legislature and the society take the offence of defilement. In appropriate cases therefore, the court, freely exercising its discretion in sentencing, should be able to impose any of the sentences prescribed, if the circumstances of the case so demand. On the other hand, the court cannot be constrained by section 8 to impose the provided sentences if the circumstances do not demand it. The argument that mandatory sentences are justified because sometimes courts impose unreasonable or lenient sentences which do not deter commission of the particular offences is not convincing, granted the express right of appeal or revision available in the event of arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of discretion in sentencing.
9. Even though Appellant was a first offender, the psychological effect of the offences on the complainant cannot be underestimated.
10. Under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 75 of the Laws of Kenya), the court is entitled to take into account the period the petitioner has spent in custody in determining the sentence. The court record shows that the petitioner has served 10 years since the date of conviction.
11. The Petitioner has undertaken training and attained a certificate as a Polisher Grade III as a way of reformation. After considering all the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the fact that the Petitioner was a first offender, I re-sentence him to the period already served.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU THIS 20th DAY OF February 2020
T. W. CHERERE
JUDGE
In the presence of-
Court Assistant - Amondi/Okodoi
Petitioner - Present in person
For the State - Ms. Gathu