[2021] KEHC 7080 (KLR)
The court held that while the Supreme Court in Muruatetu declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional and required courts to consider mitigating factors, the applicant's offence was grave, involving the murder of his wife and two children and destruction of property. The court was not convinced that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7080 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Wafula Barasa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 24 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application Following Conviction and Sentence for Murder
- Outcome
- Death sentence set aside; substituted with custodial sentence of thirty-five years from 9th June 2012.
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Resentencing Guidelines, Mandatory Death Sentence, Gender Based Violence, Remorse and Rehabilitation
- 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
James Wafula Barasa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application Following Conviction and Sentence for Murder
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for murder should be substituted with a custodial sentence in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the applicant's period in custody and claims of reformation and remorse warrant a lesser sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while the Supreme Court in Muruatetu declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional and required courts to consider mitigating factors, the applicant's offence was grave, involving the murder of his wife and two children and destruction of property. The court was not convinced that the period already served was sufficient punishment or that the applicant had paid his debt to society, despite his claims of remorse and rehabilitation. Accordingly, the death sentence was set aside and substituted with a custodial sentence of thirty-five years, effective from the date of lawful custody.
Court Disposition
Death sentence set aside; substituted with custodial sentence of thirty-five years from 9th June 2012.
Orders
- The sentence of death is set aside.
- The applicant is sentenced to serve thirty-five (35) years imprisonment, effective from 9th June 2012.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO 24 OF 2019
(From original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. HCR 35 OF 2010 at Kitale)
JAMES WAFULA BARASA.........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, James Wafula Baraza was convicted of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The court found as a fact that the prosecution had established the charges that were brought against the Applicant that he caused the death of the three victims with malice aforethought. The three victims were, respectively, his wife and children. The circumstances that led to the death of the victims, according to the judgment of the court, was that the Applicant, being annoyed that his wife had left the matrimonial home for her parent’s home, followed her to her parents’ home and set the house on fire the house that that she and the children were in. The victims sustained fatal injuries. After convicting the Applicant the court (J.R. Karanja J) sentenced the Applicant to suffer death.
The Applicant indicates that he has not filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. He has moved the court pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision of Francis Korioko Muruatetu -Vs- R [2017] eKLR for resentencing. He told the court that at the time of sentencing him, was of the view that the only sentence that could be meted on him was the death sentence. He pleaded with the court to sentence him to serve an alternative but lenient sentence. He urged the court to give him a second chance at life so that he can take care of his children. During his incarceration, he had learnt a lot of courses that will make him a useful member of the society if he is released. Such courses include, Bible Studies, and fighting drug abuse. He pointed out that he had been in lawful custody since 9th June 2012. He urged the court to allow his application. Mr Omooria for the Prosecution was not opposed to the court exercising its discretion appropriately.
In the Muruatetu case (Supra), the Supreme Court held that among the factors to be considered when determining an application for resentencing includes; the age of the offender; whether the offender was a first offender; whether the offender pleaded guilty; character and record of the offender; commission of the offence in relation to gender based violence; remorsefulness of the offender; the possibility of reform and social re-adaption of the offender; and any other factor that may be considered relevant.
In the present application, it was clear to the court that the Applicant committed a serious offence. The Applicant was not only a perpetrator of gender based violence, after causing his wife to flee from the Matrimonial home, he followed her to her parent’s home where he committed the offence. Apart from killing his wife and two of their children, he set ablaze his parents’ in law house thus causing them financial ruin. The Applicant says he has reformed; that he should be given a second chance at life and that he is remorseful and has learnt many courses in Prison that will make him a better person if he is released back to the society. This court is not convinced that the period that the Applicant has been in prison is sufficient punishment for the offences that he committed. He has not yet paid his just debts to the society.
In the premises there, the Applicant’s application will succeed only to the extent that his sentence of death shall be set aside and substitute a sentence of this court sentencing the Applicant to serve a custodial term of thirty five (35) years. The sentence shall take effect from 9th June 2012 when he was placed in lawful custody as he awaited his trial.
It is so ordered.
DATED AT KITALE THIS 10TH DAY OF MAY 2021.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE