[2021] KEHC 1209 (KLR)
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's clarification in the 2021 Muruatetu directions restricts the application of its 2017 decision to mandatory sentences for murder only. Since the petitioner's conviction was for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code, the Muruatetu jurisprudence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 1209 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kepher Induli Azangu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 22 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
- Outcome
- petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; file closed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Jurisdiction of High Court, Sentence Review, Robbery With Violence
- 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
Kepher Induli Azangu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a sentence for robbery with violence based on the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the Muruatetu decision on mandatory sentences applies to offences other than murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's clarification in the 2021 Muruatetu directions restricts the application of its 2017 decision to mandatory sentences for murder only. Since the petitioner's conviction was for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code, the Muruatetu jurisprudence does not apply. Consequently, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review or alter the sentence imposed by the trial court for robbery with violence. The petition is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed, and the file closed.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; file closed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed as incompetent.
- The file herein is to be closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
PETITION NO. 22 OF 2019
KEPHER INDULI AZANGU........................................................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 petition herein, dated 28th July 2020, filed herein on 23rd July 2020, principally rides 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 petitioner seeks review of his sentence, where he had been convicted of robbery with violence, contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, in Vihiga SMCCRC No. 605 of 2006, and was sentenced to death. He filed an appeal at the High Court at Kakamega, being HCCRA No. 192 of 2009, where conviction was affirmed and sentence confirmed.
3. The offence, the subject of the instant proceedings, is not murder, but robbery with violence, contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, Cap 63, 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 petition is incompetent. The file herein to be closed.
4. The Deputy Registrar shall cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the petitioner and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Kakamega.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE