[2021] KEHC 3585 (KLR)
The court found that the death sentence imposed on the applicant was lawful and constitutional, as authorized by Section 204 of the Penal Code and Article 26(3) of the Constitution. The applicant had the opportunity to appeal both conviction and sentence but failed to do so. The trial court considered mitigation and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3585 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Meshack Oduol Alara; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E098 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Sentence Review, Death Penalty, Mitigation, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Meshack Oduol Alara
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to resentencing for the offence of murder after being sentenced to death.
- 2 Whether the death sentence imposed is unconstitutional or unlawful in light of recent jurisprudence and constitutional provisions.
- 3 Whether the applicant's mitigation and alleged rehabilitation warrant interference with the original sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the death sentence imposed on the applicant was lawful and constitutional, as authorized by Section 204 of the Penal Code and Article 26(3) of the Constitution. The applicant had the opportunity to appeal both conviction and sentence but failed to do so. The trial court considered mitigation and the circumstances of the offence before sentencing. The Supreme Court's guidelines in Francis Muruatetu do not automatically entitle convicts to resentencing, especially where the original sentence was imposed after due consideration of mitigation and the law. There was no basis to interfere with the trial court's discretion, and the application for resentencing was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for resentencing is dismissed.
- File closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT SIAYA
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E098 OF 2021
CORAM: HON. R.E. ABURILI, J
MESHACK ODUOL ALARA...................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an Application for Sentence Review against sentence in Siaya HCCRC No. 15 of 2016 by Hon. Justice J.A. Makau, J on 2. 2.2018)
RULING
1. The applicant herein Meshack Oduol Alara is a convict for the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code in Siaya HCR 15/2016. He was sentenced to suffer death. He has not appealed against the conviction and sentence and now seeks for resentencing on account that he has reformed after being rehabilitated and that he is entitled to the least severe sentence as contemplated in Article 50(2)(p), 24(1)(2) of the Constitution as read with Section 26(2) of the Penal Code and 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The court that sentenced the applicant had jurisdiction to do so and the guidelines by the Supreme Court in the recent Francis Muruatetu case are clear. The applicant/convict had the opportunity to appeal his conviction and sentence. He sat on his rights from 2/2/2018 when he was sentenced by James Makau J. The death sentence is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional as it is authorized by Section 204 of the Penal Code and Article 26(3) of the Constitution which clarifies that position.
3. The convict was given an opportunity to mitigate which he did through his counsel Mr. Ochieng and the trial court (James Makau J) did consider the mitigations and circumstances under which the offence of murder was committed before sentencing the convict to death.
4. I have no reason to interfere with that discretion through resentencing. Accordingly, I hereby decline the application and dismiss it.
5. File closed.
6. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and Delivered at Siaya this 20th Day of September 2021
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE