[2021] KEHC 3952 (KLR)
The court found that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the applicant was entitled to have his sentence reviewed and to present mitigation. The court considered the applicant's psychiatric report, which confirmed he was now stable and free from psychopathology, and the prison report, which...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3952 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Gakie Muiruri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 315 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Resentencing Application Following Supreme Court Guidance
- Outcome
- application allowed; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Insanity Defence, Mitigation, Murder, Presidential Pleasure, 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
John Gakie Muiruri
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Resentencing Application Following Supreme Court Guidance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, previously sentenced to detention at the president's pleasure due to insanity, is entitled to resentencing and release following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the applicant's rehabilitation and current mental status justify his release after serving 20 years.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the applicant was entitled to have his sentence reviewed and to present mitigation. The court considered the applicant's psychiatric report, which confirmed he was now stable and free from psychopathology, and the prison report, which attested to his good conduct, vocational training, and spiritual growth over twenty years of incarceration. The court determined that the twenty years already served constituted a commensurate punishment for the offence, especially given the applicant's demonstrated rehabilitation and the circumstances of his mental state at the time of the offence. Accordingly, the court ordered...
Court Disposition
application allowed; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The 20 years served in custody is deemed commensurate punishment for the offence committed.
- The applicant is hereby set free unless lawfully held for another cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 315 OF 2018
JOHN GAKIE MUIRURI......APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC........................PROSECUTOR
RULING
1. The applicant was convicted for the murder of his wife and he was sentence on 26th June 2003 at the pleasure of the president as he was found to have been insane.
2. Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in Francis Muruatetu and others v. Rep (2017) eKLRhe filed this application seeking to mitigate afresh.
3. The applicant pleaded that at the time of the incident he was found to be of unsound mind but he has since been treated and healed. That he was remorseful and he has learned lifelong lessons and he regretted the offence. He has attached several testimonials of what he has been engaged in while in prison. He has for instance trained in metal works and he was now a certified welder.
4. The learned state counsel following the principles laid down in the above Muruatetu case did not oppose the application.
5. The court on its part called for a psychiatric report of the applicant before a decision could be made. The court as well ordered the prison authorities to avail the applicant’s current status.
6. The prison report dated 8th July 2021 is favourable to the applicant. It indicated that he has spent twenty years in prison and he has kept a clean record. He has also achieved some training in spiritual matters and that they recommended him back to the society.
7. The report dated 7th July by Dr. Karanja S W a psychiatrist from Gilgil sub county hospital was equally favourable to the applicant. He found him to be stable after undergoing treatment from 2001 to 2003. He said that he no longer has psychopathology symptoms.
8. In view of the above reports and in view of the circumstances that led to the appellant commit the heinous offence, this court finds that the application is merited.
9. Consequently, the court holds that the 20 years’ period the applicant has served in custody is a commensurate punishment for the offence he committed. He is hereby set free unless lawfully held.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.
H K CHEMITEI
JUDGE