[2022] KEHC 14563 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 14563 (KLR)

The court found that the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the applicants was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, noting the extreme violence and brutality inflicted on the deceased by the applicants. Despite the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 14563 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: James Nyaga Gitemba; Applicant: Victor Nthiga Kiruthu; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Revision Case 412 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Resentencing Application After Conviction and Appeal
Outcome
Application for resentencing allowed; death sentence set aside and substituted with thirty years' imprisonment from 30th October 2010.
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Resentencing, Mandatory Death Sentence, Murder Conviction, Constitutional Rights, Sentence Review
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Resentencing Mandatory Death Sentence Murder Conviction Constitutional Rights Sentence Review

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Nyaga Gitemba

Applicant

Victor Nthiga Kiruthu

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Resentencing Application After Conviction and Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence imposed on the applicants should be reviewed in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic.
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances of the offence and the applicants' conduct warrant a resentencing to a term of imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the applicants was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, noting the extreme violence and brutality inflicted on the deceased by the applicants. Despite the applicants' remorse and the time already served, the court determined that the seriousness and viciousness of the attack warranted a substantial custodial sentence. Consequently, the court substituted the death sentence with a term of thirty years' imprisonment, effective from the original sentencing date of 30th October 2010.

Court Disposition

Application for resentencing allowed; death sentence set aside and substituted with thirty years' imprisonment from 30th October 2010.

Orders

  • The mandatory death sentence imposed upon the applicants is reviewed and set aside.
  • The applicants are sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment from 30th October 2010.