[2021] KEHC 6270 (KLR)
The court held that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the applicant was unconstitutional. The court considered the applicant's mitigation, including his demonstrated rehabilitation, lack of adverse reports from prison authorities, and the fact...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6270 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geofrey Langat; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 134 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Resentencing Application Following Supreme Court Decision
- Outcome
- application allowed; resentencing granted
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Mandatory Death Sentence, Mitigation, Rehabilitation of Offenders, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code
- 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
Geofrey Langat
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Resentencing Application Following Supreme Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Muruatetu & Another v Republic (2017) eKLR.
- 2 Whether the period spent in custody prior to conviction should be considered in sentencing under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the applicant's rehabilitation and mitigation justify a lesser sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the applicant was unconstitutional. The court considered the applicant's mitigation, including his demonstrated rehabilitation, lack of adverse reports from prison authorities, and the fact that he was a first offender and young at the time of the offence. The court also applied Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, taking into account the period the applicant had already spent in custody since 2nd March 2004. Consequently, the court set aside the life sentence and substituted it with a custodial sentence of 25 years imprisonment to run from 2nd March...
Court Disposition
application allowed; resentencing granted
Orders
- The life sentence is set aside and substituted with a custodial sentence of 25 years imprisonment from 2nd March 2004.
- The prison authorities are directed to compute the sentence accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2019
GEOFREY LANGAT...................................................................................................APPPLICANT
VERSES
REPUBLIC...............................................................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. The applicant herein was convicted and sentence to suffer death by this court on 1st November 2007. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed and I supposed the death sentence was later commuted just like all the rest of the convicts. He had been accused of murdering one Simon Kibii Arap Soi.
2. With the advent of the now famous decision of FRANCIS MURUATETU AND ANOTHER V. REP. (2017) eKLR by the Supreme Court of Kenya the applicant has filed this motion seeking that he be resentenced afresh. He has followed this with a lengthy mitigation which he has stated that he is now reformed and the 16 years he has been in custody has taught him lifelong lessons.
3. He said that he has been rehabilitated and has learned various trades while in prison including carpentry and joinery of various grades. Given the chance to come out of prison he promises to be of a good citizen. He apologised to the family of the deceased.
4. Citing various recent authorities, he submitted that he be granted another chance just like those mentioned in the said cited authorities. Further that the court by dint of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Chapter 75 Laws of Kenya should take into consideration the period he served while in custody prior to his conviction and subsequent sentencing.
5. The learned state counsel essentially did not oppose the application but requested the court to take into consideration the report by the prison authorities in regard to the character of the applicant when making the decision.
6. The court has perused both the judgments of the Court of Appeal and this court and the circumstances leading to the deceased death. It is also noted that the applicant’s father who was also a co -accused passed on in prison before the matter was concluded.
7. Taking the totality of the facts herein and the jurisprudence emanating from the Muruatetu case (supra), this court finds that the application merits consideration. The fact is that no amount of punishment can bring back the deceased. At the same time incarcerating the applicant forever my not be totally efficacious. It is noted that he was a first offender and at that time a young man of 24 years as per his submission.
8. The essence of punishment is to bring change upon the aggressor and mitigate on behalf of the victim. If there is a genuine change, then the aggressor ought to be granted a chance to join the society especially in a situation where it was a known first time offender.
9. In this regard the applicant has been in custody since 2nd March 2004 which is about 17 years. From his submission he has busied himself through internal training and he has taken some theological courses, carpentry and joinery. There is no adverse report from the prison authorities.
10. The court as well is alive to the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Codewhich states that;
“Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.
Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.”
11. From the above portion of the law this court takes into consideration that the applicant has been in custody from 2nd March 2004.
12. For these reasons, the life sentence is hereby set aside and is substituted with a custodial sentence of 25 years imprisonment from 2nd March 2004. The prison authorities are consequently directed to compute the same.
Dated signed and delivered via video link at Nakuru this 10th day of June 2021.
H K CHEMITEI.
JUDGE