[2020] KEHC 8941 (KLR)
The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner for robbery with violence was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu v Republic, which held that mandatory death sentences violate the right to mitigation and judicial discretion. The court considered...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8941 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Michael Oduor Oronde; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 35 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Resentencing Following Mandatory Death Sentence and Exhaustion of Appeals
- Outcome
- petition allowed; resentencing granted
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Resentencing Principles, Robbery With Violence, Mitigation 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
Michael Oduor Oronde
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Resentencing Following Mandatory Death Sentence and Exhaustion of Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence imposed under section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional for depriving the convict of the right to mitigation and judicial discretion in sentencing.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Muruatetu v Republic.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner for robbery with violence was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu v Republic, which held that mandatory death sentences violate the right to mitigation and judicial discretion. The court considered the petitioner's remorse, rehabilitation, and time already served, and determined that he was reformed and capable of reintegration into society. Consequently, the court set aside the death sentence and substituted it with a determinate prison term of twenty years, to be calculated from the date of initial incarceration.
Court Disposition
petition allowed; resentencing granted
Orders
- The mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
- The petitioner is sentenced to a prison term of twenty (20) years to be calculated from 21/8/2008.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT SIAYA
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 35 OF 2019
MICHAEL ODUOR ORONDE.........PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...................................... RESPONDENT
(Petition for resentencing following mandatory death sentence imposed in Siaya PM Cr Case No 69 of 2008; affirmed by the High Court at Kisumu in HCRA NO. 177 of 2010 and the Court of Appeal at Kisumu in CA CRA 187 of 2012)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner MICHAEL ODUOR ORONDE by this petition dated 22nd July 2019 seeks for resentencing following his conviction and sentence of death imposed on him for the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code vide Siaya PM Cr Case No 69 of 2008; affirmed by the High Court at Kisumu in HCRA NO. 177 of 2010 and the Court of Appeal at Kisumu in CA CRA 187 of 2012 which appeals were all dismissed.
2. He seeks to benefit from the decision in Francis Muruatetu v Republic SC PETITION NO. 15/2015decision that declared the mandatoriness of death sentence unconstitutional for depriving the convict an opportunity to mitigate and for depriving the trial court of the judicial discretion in sentencing.
3. I have considered the petition herein and the mitigations by the petitioner and his submissions. The petitioner has been in prison from 2008 and despite maintaining his innocence, he now readily admits having committed the offence. He seeks for leniency of this court. The items of the robbery were among others, blankets. He has been behind bars for close to 12 years and he says that he has not benefitted from the crime. He regrets the offence. He has trained in carpentry and biblical studies. He promises not to reoffend.
4. The Prosecution agrees that the petitioner has demonstrated remorse and that he can be a good ambassador to others out there.
5. Having considered the petition, mitigation and submissions by the prosecution, and circumstances under which the offence was committed, iam satisfied that the petitioner is remorseful and that he is reformed. He has learnt life’s skills in prison which can help him live a meaningful life in the society as he has learnt that crime does not pay.
6. In the premises, I hereby allow the petition for resentencing. I set aside the mandatory death sentence imposed on him and substitute it with a prison term of twenty (20) years to be calculated from 21/8/2008
7. Orders accordingly.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Siaya this 21st Day of January, 2020
R. E. ABURILI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
The Petitioner in person
Mr. Okachi SPPC for Respondent
CA: Brenda and Modestar