[2020] KEHC 8796 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant was not sentenced to death but to life imprisonment, and therefore the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu, which declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional, does not apply to his case. Furthermore, the High Court is functus officio after the applicant's appeal was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8796 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Wambua Kasina; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 150 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Principles, Mandatory Sentences, Constitutional Rights
- 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 Wambua Kasina
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2017] eKLR.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for resentencing after the Court of Appeal has dismissed the applicant's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant was not sentenced to death but to life imprisonment, and therefore the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu, which declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional, does not apply to his case. Furthermore, the High Court is functus officio after the applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and any application for resentencing should have been made to the appellate court or the Supreme Court. The application for resentencing before the High Court is thus without merit and must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for resentencing is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPL. NO. 150 OF 2019
JACKSON WAMBUA................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..............................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON RE-SENTENSING
1. Jackson Wambua Kasina, the Applicant herein was charged with defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the sexual offences Act.
2. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to full hearing. He was convicted and sentenced to serve life imprisonment.
3. The Applicant was aggrieved by the decision of the trial court and filed an appeal to the High Court against both the conviction and sentence. The appeal was duly heard. A judgment was delivered on 18. 2.2014 and the appeal was dismissed. The judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence. The applicant proceeded to the court of appeal and the judgement delivered on 18. 2.2019 wherein the appeal was dismissed by a 3-judge bench of Honorable Justices W. Ouko, S. Gatembu Kairu and Lady Justice A.K. Murgor.
4. The Applicant did not appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal and opted to file a new application before the High Court in which he seeks a retrial for sentencing pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2017] eKLRdeclaring the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional.
5. Article 50(2)(p) of the constitution provides that an accused person has a right to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments for an offence, if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing. In S v. Ndlovu 2012 (1) ZLR 393 the Zambian High Court observed that sentencing must utilize an engendered approach and a constitutional and human rights perspective and from the import of Article 50(2) (p) of the constitution, the applicant is not entitled to resentencing.
6. The cited case has necessitated resentencing of all persons previously sentenced to the mandatory death sentence and the applicant was not sentenced to death but to life imprisonment.
7. Further as pointed out by the state, this is an inappropriate application and the court is functus officio. Such an application can only be entertained by a higher Court – the Supreme Court. In any case the Court of Appeal that heard his latest appeal was the right forum for him to agitate his request. He could still have approached the said court for review of their orders but not to come back to the High Court. This application lacks merit and is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 29th day of January, 2020.
D. K. Kemei
Judge