[2019] KEHC 309 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 309 (KLR)

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis K. Muratetu & Another v Republic, the mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional and courts are required to exercise discretion in sentencing. The applicants, having already served a significant period in remand and custody, were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 309 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joash Sota Ratemo; Applicant: Nicholas Magati Oigo; Applicant: Julius Nyakundi Masenya; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Resentencing After Conviction and Sentence for Murder
Outcome
resentenced
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Murder Sentencing, Death Penalty Unconstitutionality, Resentencing Guidelines, Supreme Court Precedent
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Death Penalty Unconstitutionality Resentencing Guidelines Supreme Court Precedent

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joash Sota Ratemo

Applicant

Nicholas Magati Oigo

Applicant

Julius Nyakundi Masenya

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Resentencing After Conviction and Sentence for Murder

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision declaring the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the applicants in light of the time already served and the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis K. Muratetu & Another v Republic, the mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional and courts are required to exercise discretion in sentencing. The applicants, having already served a significant period in remand and custody, were entitled to have their sentences reviewed. Taking into account the total period spent in custody (approximately 10 years, including 7 years remand and 3 years post-sentence), the court determined that an 18-year custodial sentence from the date of original sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the offence and circumstances. The applicants retain the right of appeal within...

Court Disposition

resentenced

Orders

  • Each applicant is resentenced to serve 18 years imprisonment from the date of original sentence in court.
  • Applicants have a right of appeal within 14 days.