[2023] KEHC 23677 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant's previous application for resentencing had already been heard and determined by the High Court, the applicant could not return to the same court for a review of the sentence imposed. The court emphasized that the applicant's recourse, if dissatisfied, lay with the Court of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23677 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Langat Alias Zacharia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Resentencing Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Resentencing Applications, Mandatory Death Penalty, Constitutional Rights, Post Muruatetu Jurisprudence
- 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 Langat Alias Zacharia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Resentencing Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the High Court can entertain a second resentencing application after previously determining the issue.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant's previous application for resentencing had already been heard and determined by the High Court, the applicant could not return to the same court for a review of the sentence imposed. The court emphasized that the applicant's recourse, if dissatisfied, lay with the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant could not benefit from the doctrine in the Muruatetu case under the circumstances, as his application had already been adjudicated post-Muruatetu. Accordingly, the application for resentencing was dismissed as unmeritorious.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for resentencing is dismissed as unmeritorious.
- The applicant may pursue arguments for reduced sentence before the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Langat alias Zacharia v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 23677 (KLR) (17 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23677 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2022
JK Sergon, J
October 17, 2023
Between
Charles Langat Alias Zacharia
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant vide HCCR Case No. 28 of 2015 was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code, he was subsequently convicted of the said offence and sentenced to death.
2. Theapplicant previously moved this court for resentencing vide a notice of motion and a supporting affidavit sworn the applicant herein.
3. The applicant averred that the application for resentencing was premised on article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution which empowers the court to deal with the resentencing application.
4. The applicant averred that the application was guided by the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR in which the Supreme Court declared that the mandatory nature of the death sentence was unconstitutional.
5. This court vide a ruling delivered by Dulu. J on December 19, 2019 found that the application was incompetent as the applicant was sentenced after the Supreme Court decision in the Muruatetu case, this court struck out the application and directed that the applicant could appeal to the Court of Appeal.
6. On February 17, 2022, the applicant subsequently moved this court for resentencing, the matter was fixed for hearing on July 25, 2023. The prosecution did not oppose the said Application.
7. After perusing the record, I find that this court previously heard and determined an application for resentencing by the applicant and dismissed it.
8. In the circumstances, the applicant’s resentencing application was heard and determined by the High Court. He cannot return to the High Court for a review of the sentence imposed. He is at liberty to make an argument for reduced sentence at the Court of Appeal.
9. Consequently, I reach the conclusion that the applicant cannot, in the circumstances of this case, benefit from the doctrine propounded in Muruatetu Case. I therefore dismiss his application for re-sentencing as unmeritorious.
10. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. ………………………J.K. SERGONJUDGE