[2019] KEHC 12217 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 12217 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner had already served 23 years in prison for the offence of robbery with violence, during which he demonstrated rehabilitation and remorse. The Director of Public Prosecution recommended a total sentence of 25 years, which, if adopted, would mean the petitioner was effectively due...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 12217 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Isaac Kamau Irungu; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 160 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition allowed in part; petitioner released
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Sentencing Principles, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Fundamental Rights, Remission of Sentence
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Fair Trial Sentencing Principles Supervisory Jurisdiction Fundamental Rights Remission of Sentence

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

Parties

Isaac Kamau Irungu

Petitioner

Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the continued incarceration of the petitioner after serving 23 years for robbery with violence violates his constitutional rights.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed should be reviewed in light of the petitioner's rehabilitation and the submissions of the DPP.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner had already served 23 years in prison for the offence of robbery with violence, during which he demonstrated rehabilitation and remorse. The Director of Public Prosecution recommended a total sentence of 25 years, which, if adopted, would mean the petitioner was effectively due for release. The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under the Constitution to ensure that continued incarceration would not amount to an unjust deprivation of liberty, given the petitioner's reformation and the time already served. Accordingly, the court ordered that the petitioner be sentenced to the period already served and be set free unless otherwise lawfully held.

Court Disposition

petition allowed in part; petitioner released

Orders

  • The petitioner is sentenced to the period already served, being 23 years.
  • The petitioner is set free unless otherwise lawfully held.