[2025] KEHC 2050 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional challenge to the mandatory death sentence for violent robbery in the context of a miscellaneous criminal application. The Supreme Court in Joshua Gichuki Mwangi & Others made it clear that such challenges must be brought by way of a substantive...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 2050 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Thomas Irungu Kamau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Case E100 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Resentencing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JM Nang'ea
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Death Penalty, Constitutional Challenge, Violent Robbery
- 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
Thomas Irungu Kamau
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Resentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can entertain a constitutional challenge to the mandatory death sentence for violent robbery in a miscellaneous criminal application.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to resentencing in light of the Supreme Court's decision on mandatory death sentences.
- 3 Whether the sentences can be ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in remand custody considered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional challenge to the mandatory death sentence for violent robbery in the context of a miscellaneous criminal application. The Supreme Court in Joshua Gichuki Mwangi & Others made it clear that such challenges must be brought by way of a substantive constitutional petition, with the appropriate parties joined. Since the mandatory death sentence for violent robbery has not been invalidated, and the applicant did not follow the prescribed procedure, the court could not grant the orders sought, including resentencing, ordering concurrent sentences, or considering time spent in remand custody.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for resentencing is dismissed.
- No orders are made regarding concurrent sentences or consideration of remand custody period.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Kamau v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Case E100 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 2050 (KLR) (11 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 2050 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Miscellaneous Criminal Case E100 of 2024
JM Nang'ea, J
February 11, 2025
Between
Thomas Irungu Kamau
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant was charged with and convicted of the offence of various counts of Violent Robbery Contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code before the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Narok. He was sentenced to suffer death in Criminal Case Number 786 of 2002 as provided by the law. His appeal to this court was unsuccessful hence this application. A second appeal could not be lodged because an unspecified file got lost.
2. The Applicant avers vide affidavit in support of the application that the Supreme Court had declared mandatory death sentences as unconstitutional and so he applies for re-sentencing in light of that pronouncement.
3. The Applicant further pleads that once alternative sentences are meted out by this court the same be ordered to be served out concurrently arguing that the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. The court is also urged to factor in the period the Applicant spent in remand custody.
4. The Applicant filed written submissions while the Prosecution Counsel did not make submissions in reply.
5. The Applicant rightly submits that pursuant to the recent Supreme Court’s case of Joshua Gichuki Mwangi & Others in Petition No. E018 of 2023, any challenge on the Constitutional validity of mandatory sentences for other capital offences, other that murder in respect of which the apex court has already delivered itself, is welcome for determination by the High Court and the Court of Appeal where necessary, in the event of an appeal. This challenge is to be mounted in a proper substantive Constitutional Petition.
6. In line with the decision in Joshua Gichuki Mwangi supra, the Applicant proceeded to make detailed submissions herein on what he considers as unconstitutionality of a mandatory death sentence for violent robbery charge of which he had been convicted in the Subordinate Court.
7. In my view the Applicant cannot raise such a weighty constitutional issue in a Miscellaneous Criminal Application such as before the court. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of the said Joshua Gichuki Mwangi, a proper substantive Constitutional Petition should be filed in the High Court and where necessary, escalated to the Court of Appeal. Because of the importance of such a Petition, proper Respondents would include the Director of Public Prosecution, the Attorney General and other Interested Parties as may be identified.
8. This court will not therefore treat this application as the Petition contemplated by the Supreme Court in its cited decision.
9. For the reason given hereinabove that death sentences in violent robbery cases have not been invalidated, this court has no jurisdiction to mete out a different sentence. The procedure for challenging mandatory death sentences in capital offences, other than murder has been explained in the case of Joshua Gichuki Mwangi above referred to. Considering the nature of the sentence imposed by the lower court, this court cannot direct the sentences to be served concurrently as prayed. Neither can the court consider the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
RULING DELIVERED THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF:J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.Ms Sang for the DPPApplicant, presentCourt Assistant (Jeniffer)