[2021] KEHC 807 (KLR)
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR, as clarified in 2021, is strictly confined to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code. Since the petitioners were convicted of robbery with violence under section...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 807 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joash Angatiba; Applicant: Suleiman Mohammed; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 54 & 55 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
- Outcome
- petitions dismissed for want of jurisdiction; files closed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Robbery With Violence, Sentence Review, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Joash Angatiba
Applicant
Suleiman Mohammed
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR apply to mandatory sentences for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code?
- 2 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review sentences for robbery with violence in light of the Supreme Court's clarification in 2021?
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR, as clarified in 2021, is strictly confined to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code. Since the petitioners were convicted of robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code, the Muruatetu decision does not apply to their cases. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or alter the sentences imposed for robbery with violence. The petitions are therefore incompetent and must be dismissed, and the files closed.
Court Disposition
petitions dismissed for want of jurisdiction; files closed
Orders
- The petitions are dismissed as incompetent.
- The files herein are to be closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL PETITIONS NOS. 54 AND 55 OF 2018
JOASH ANGATIBA ..................................................................................1ST PETITIONER
SULEIMAN MOHAMMED.....................................................................2ND PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter was placed before me for the purpose of giving directions, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ), with respect to mandatory sentences, where it was clarified that the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), had arisen from proceedings relating to murder, under section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, and the position stated in the said decision was intended to apply only to mandatory sentences with respect to murder cases.
2. The petitions herein, dated 12th November 2018, filed herein on 14th November 2018, are principally founded on the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), for the petitioners seek review of their sentences, where they had been convicted of robbery with violence, contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, in Kakamega CMCCRC No. 855 of 2003, and were sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the President of the Republic of Kenya. They filed appeals at the High Court at Kakamega, being HCCRA Nos. 103 of 2009 and 2 of 2005, respectively, both of which were dismissed. They allude to having filed appeals at the Court of Appeal, at Kisumu, but details have not been furnished.
3. The offence, the subject of the instant proceedings, is not murder, but robbery with violence, as defined in the Penal Code, the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), therefore, does not apply to it. As a consequence, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence that was imposed by the trial court, in view of the directions given in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ). The petitions are incompetent. The files herein are to be closed.
4. The Deputy Registrar shall cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the petitioners and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Kakamega.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE