[2020] KEHC 6944 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6944 (KLR)

The court found that the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court considered the period the petitioner had already spent in custody, his efforts at reformation, and the lack of ongoing animosity between the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6944 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Lucas Ochieng Mwalo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Murder Case 62 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Resentencing After Conviction and Sentence for Murder
Outcome
Death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 20 years' imprisonment from 5th October, 2016.
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Mandatory Death Sentence, Resentencing, Murder Conviction, Mitigating Circumstances, Supreme Court Precedent
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Mandatory Death Sentence Resentencing Murder Conviction Mitigating Circumstances Supreme Court Precedent

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucas Ochieng Mwalo

Petitioner

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Resentencing After Conviction and Sentence for Murder

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing and what sentence is appropriate considering the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court considered the period the petitioner had already spent in custody, his efforts at reformation, and the lack of ongoing animosity between the families. However, the court also weighed the unprovoked and brutal nature of the offence and the suffering caused to the victim. Balancing these factors, the court determined that a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment from the date of the original sentence was appropriate, replacing the death penalty.

Court Disposition

Death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 20 years' imprisonment from 5th October, 2016.

Orders

  • The petitioner is resentenced to 20 years' imprisonment from 5th October, 2016.
  • Judgment delivered via video conferencing due to COVID-19 restrictions.