[2019] KEHC 2067 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 2067 (KLR)

The court found that the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence, previously imposed on the petitioner, was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court considered the gravity of the offences (robbery with violence and rape), the period already served (13 years), the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 2067 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Fredrick Ambani Natili; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 40 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Resentencing After Conviction and Appeal
Outcome
petition for resentencing allowed; sentence varied
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Resentencing, Robbery With Violence, Rape, Mandatory Sentencing, Mitigation, Supreme Court Precedent
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Resentencing Robbery With Violence Rape Mandatory Sentencing Mitigation 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick Ambani Natili

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Resentencing After Conviction and Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional and necessitates resentencing.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu and the circumstances of the case.
  3. 3 Whether the period already served by the petitioner should be considered in resentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence, previously imposed on the petitioner, was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court considered the gravity of the offences (robbery with violence and rape), the period already served (13 years), the petitioner's reformation efforts, and the fact that he was a first offender. Applying the Sentencing Policy Guidelines and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court determined that a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for robbery with violence, with the 5-year sentence for rape to run concurrently from the date of conviction, was appropriate. The court thus...

Court Disposition

petition for resentencing allowed; sentence varied

Orders

  • The petitioner is resentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code from 18th September, 2003.
  • The 5 years' sentence for rape contrary to section 140 of the Penal Code shall run concurrently with the 20 years' sentence from 18th September, 2003.