[2023] KEHC 928 (KLR)
The court held that, although the Supreme Court's Muruatetu guidelines formally apply only to murder cases, the petitioner was entitled to have his sentence reconsidered in light of the evolving jurisprudence on mandatory sentences and the need for individualized sentencing. The court considered the period already...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 928 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Kabwi Laibon; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E019 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition partly allowed; applicant resentenced
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Mandatory Death Penalty, Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Guidelines, Mitigating Factors
- 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
Charles Kabwi Laibon
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court guidelines in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the mandatory death penalty for robbery with violence is unconstitutional or subject to resentencing.
- 3 Whether the period spent in custody should be considered in resentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, although the Supreme Court's Muruatetu guidelines formally apply only to murder cases, the petitioner was entitled to have his sentence reconsidered in light of the evolving jurisprudence on mandatory sentences and the need for individualized sentencing. The court considered the period already served (18 years), the aggravating circumstances of the offence (including severe violence and injury to the complainants), and the lack of evidence of rehabilitation. Applying the Sentencing Policy Guidelines and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court determined that a resentencing to fifteen years' imprisonment from the date of conviction was appropriate,...
Court Disposition
petition partly allowed; applicant resentenced
Orders
- The applicant is resentenced to fifteen (15) years' imprisonment with effect from the date of conviction.
- The period already served in custody is to be taken into account.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Laibon v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Petition E019 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 928 (KLR) (9 February 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 928 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Petition E019 of 2022
TW Cherere, J
February 9, 2023
Between
Charles Kabwi Laibon
Petitioner
and
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
Respondent
Judgment
1)Petitioner was convicted of robbery with violence in IsioloCMCR. Case.3793 of 2010 and was sentenced to death. His appeals to the High Court vide HCCr.Appeal No 47 OF 2014 was dismissed but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
2)Applicant seeks resentence. By way of directions dated July 6, 2021, the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) [2021] eKLR directed inter alia as follows:1)The decision of Muruatetu and these guidelines apply only in respect to sentences of murder under Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code2)In respect of other capital offences such as treason under section 40 (3), robbery with violence under section 296 (2), and attempted robbery with violence under section 297 (2) of the Penal Code, that a challenge on the constitutional validity of the mandatory death penalty in such cases should be properly filed, presented, and fully argued before the High Court and escalated to the Court of Appeal, if necessary, at which a similar outcome as that in this case may be reached.
3)I have considered The Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 and its application which is intended to promote transparency, consistency and fairness in sentencing (See Michael Kathewa Laichena & another v Republic[2018] eKLR).
4)Under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 75 of the Laws of Kenya), the court is entitled to take into account the period the applicant has spent in custody in determining the sentence. The court record shows that the applicant has served 18 years since the date of conviction.
5)I have considered all the mitigating and aggravating factors. The Applicant not only robbed the complainants but also chopped off their fingers among causing other injuries. Applicant has not undertaken any form of training as a way of reformation.
6)The Applicant is resentenced to Fifteen (15) years with effect from date of conviction and it is hoped that he will for the remaining term undertake some form of training as a way of reformation.
DATED THIS 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - KinotiPetitioner - PresentFor the State - Ms. Kitoto (PPC)