[2020] KEHC 7468 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 7468 (KLR)

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional and that sentencing must be individualized, taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors. The petitioner had served five years and spent 14 months in pre-trial custody, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 7468 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gloria Chemutai Kipkeu; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Petition 33 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application Following Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
petition allowed in part; petitioner resentenced
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Murder Sentencing, Mandatory Death Penalty, Mitigating Factors, Resentencing Guidelines
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Mandatory Death Penalty Mitigating Factors Resentencing Guidelines

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloria Chemutai Kipkeu

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application Following Supreme Court Decision

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner in light of the mitigating and aggravating factors.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional and that sentencing must be individualized, taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors. The petitioner had served five years and spent 14 months in pre-trial custody, and presented evidence of rehabilitation. The court considered comparative sentences from the Court of Appeal and the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, ultimately determining that a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, commencing from the original sentencing date, was appropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

petition allowed in part; petitioner resentenced

Orders

  • The petitioner is resentenced to twenty five (25) years imprisonment commencing from 18/03/2015, the date of original sentencing.