[2020] KEHC 7196 (KLR)
The court held that the petitioner's reliance on the Muruatetu doctrine was misplaced because the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu was expressly limited to the mandatory death sentence under Section 204 of the Penal Code and did not extend to mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7196 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Meshack Simiyu Mukolwe; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 37 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling on Petition for Re Sentencing After Appellate Referral
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Sentencing Principles, Sexual Offences Act, Application of Supreme Court Precedent
- 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 Simiyu Mukolwe
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Petition for Re Sentencing After Appellate Referral
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to re-sentencing based on the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the Muruatetu doctrine applies to mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner's reliance on the Muruatetu doctrine was misplaced because the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu was expressly limited to the mandatory death sentence under Section 204 of the Penal Code and did not extend to mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act. Furthermore, the matter before the court was a re-hearing of the appeal, not a re-sentencing. As such, the petitioner could not benefit from the Muruatetu doctrine, and his petition for re-sentencing was dismissed as unmeritorious.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition for re-sentencing is dismissed as unmeritorious.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 37 OF 2018
MESHACK SIMIYU MUKOLWE.............................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................................. RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Petitioner was charged before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kitale, with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to serve twenty years in prison on 6/11/2012.
2. The Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2012 before the Kitale High Court and the same was dismissed. He filed a second appeal being EldoretCriminal Appeal No. 110 of 2017 where the court ordered for re-hearing of the High Court Appeal by a judge of the High Court.
3. He has now filed the instant Petition urging the Court to reconsider the sentence. The main contention is that in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Francis Kariuko Muruatetu & Another –V- Republic (2017) eKLR, the court should consider the twenty years sentence imposed on him
4. The petitioner filed certificates to demonstrate that he had reformed and had underwent various rehabilitative programmes. The officer in charge of Kitale Main Prison also wrote a recommendation letter in support of the petitioner’s claim.
5. In the Francis Muruatetu case (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows:
The mandatory nature of the death sentence as provided for under Section 204 of the Penal Code is hereby declared unconstitutional. For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not disturb the validity of the death sentence as contemplated under Article 26(3) of the Constitution.
6. The current case relates to a charge of defilement under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. In the case of Jared Koita Injiri vs. Republic [2019] eKLR , the Court of Appeal applied the Muruatetu decision mutatis mutandis to the provisions of mandatory minimum sentences as provided for in the Sexual Offences Act.
7. It is worth noting that this matter was referred back to the High Court for re hearing and not re sentencing. It would appear that the Petitioner has grounded his Petition on the Muruatetu doctrine. I am of the view that he cannot benefit from the doctrine propounded in Muruatetu Case. I therefore dismiss his petition for re-sentencing as unmeritorious.
Signed, Dated and Delivered at Kitale on this 3rd day of March, 2020.
________________
H.K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
3/3/2020
In the presence of:
M/s Kagai for the Respondent
Applicant – present
Court Assistant – Kirong
Ruling read in open court.