[2019] KEHC 1677 (KLR)
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others v Republic, the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional. The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including the nature of the evidence, the manner in which the offence was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1677 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Kailikia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 36 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Resentencing / Ruling on Resentencing
- Outcome
- death sentence set aside; substituted with 25 years imprisonment from date of original sentence
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Mandatory Death Penalty, Judicial Discretion, Resentencing Principles
- 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
Jackson Kailikia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Resentencing / Ruling on Resentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence under section 204 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional and should be set aside in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others v Republic.
- 2 What sentence is appropriate for the petitioner given the circumstances of the offence and the principles set out by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others v Republic, the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional. The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including the nature of the evidence, the manner in which the offence was committed, and the mitigating factors. The court exercised its discretion and determined that a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, to run from the date of the original sentence, was appropriate in the circumstances. The death sentence was therefore set aside and substituted with a term of years, in line with the principles established by the Supreme Court.
Court Disposition
death sentence set aside; substituted with 25 years imprisonment from date of original sentence
Orders
- The death sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
- The petitioner is sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
PETITION NO. 36 OF 2019
JACKSON KAILIKIA.......................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC........................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON RE-SENTENSING
1. The petitioner, Jackson Kailikia, with 4 others were charged before this Court with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The information charged that on 11/2/2006 at Kangeta Location, in Igembe District within Meru County, the petitioner with 4 others murdered Zakayo Michubu Kaumbuthu.
2. After trial, they were found guilty and sentenced to death. Being aggrieved by that decision, they appealed to the Court of Appeal which appeal was dismissed on 11/7/2019.
3. Vide his Motion on Notice dated 10/9/2019, the petitioner petitioned this Court to review his sentence on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR.
4. In that case, the Supreme Court of Kenya held that the mandatory nature of the death sentence under Section 204 of the Penal Code was unconstitutional as it denied the Court its discretion in sentencing. The Court proceeded to set out the criteria or the principles that should guide a Court in sentencing. Some of the considerations are age of the offender, being a first offender, whether the offender pleaded guilty, the character and record of the offender, commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence, remorsefulness of the offender, the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender and any other factor that the Court considers relevant.
5. I have considered the foregoing and the circumstances under which the offence was committed. The petitioner and his co-accused were convicted on circumstantial evidence. They were seen carrying the body of the deceased on the material day at about 7 am. They were unable to give an explanation as to how they came by the body of the deceased. The post mortem report showed that the body had burns on the right forearm, fracture of the left rib, blood in the chest and a fracture of the skull. The death must have been painful.
6. The state urged that the death sentence be maintained and that if substituted, the petitioner be sentenced for a sentence exceeding 25 years.
7. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts of the case and how the offence was committed as well as the mitigation, I set aside the death sentence and substitute therefor the sentence of 25 years. The sentence shall run from the date the petitioner was first sentenced, that is, 8/2/2008.
DATED and DELIVERED at Meru this 3rd day of December, 2019.
A. MABEYA
JUDGE