[2023] KEHC 814 (KLR)
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional. The court was required to consider mitigating and aggravating factors, including the brutality of the offence, the petitioner's remorse, and the period...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 814 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stanley Mwithalie Muchui; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 25 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Resentencing After Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Sentence
- Outcome
- Petition for resentencing allowed; petitioner resentenced to 25 years' imprisonment from date of arrest.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Mandatory Death Penalty, Resentencing Guidelines, Mitigation and Aggravation, Custodial Sentence Calculation
- 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
Stanley Mwithalie Muchui
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Resentencing After Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner should be reviewed in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the period spent in custody should be considered in resentencing.
- 3 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner given the circumstances of the offence and mitigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence previously imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional. The court was required to consider mitigating and aggravating factors, including the brutality of the offence, the petitioner's remorse, and the period already spent in custody. The petitioner had served 13 years in custody, with a favourable home report and demonstrated remorse, but had not provided evidence of formal rehabilitation. The court concluded that a custodial sentence of 25 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest was appropriate, balancing the gravity of the offence with the petitioner's circumstances and the...
Court Disposition
Petition for resentencing allowed; petitioner resentenced to 25 years' imprisonment from date of arrest.
Orders
- The petitioner is resentenced to twenty five (25) years’ imprisonment from 09th March, 2009.
- The period already served in custody shall be taken into account.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Muchui v Republic (Petition 25 of 2020) [2023] KEHC 814 (KLR) (9 February 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 814 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Petition 25 of 2020
TW Cherere, J
February 9, 2023
Between
Stanley Mwithalie Muchui
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. On 09th March, 2009, Petitioner attacked Peter Gitau with a panga and inflicted serious injuries on his head and neck, trachea, spinal cord, and the caroid arteries and left jugular veins were severed as a result of which Gitau died.
2. Petitioner was arrested and charged with murder in Meru High Court Criminal Case No. 27 of 2009 and was convicted and sentenced to suffer death on 31st July, 2014.
3. Petitioner’s appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2015 (Stanley Mwithalie Muchui v Republic [2016] eKLR) was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
4. Petitioner pleads for resentence on the ground that he has been rehabilitated.
5. Ms. Mwaniki, learned counsel for the state submitted that the sentence imposed on the Petitioner was constitutional and urged the court to uphold it.
Analysis and Determination 6. Death is a lawful sentence. However, the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR declaring the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional has necessitated resentencing of all persons previously sentenced to the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences.
7. I have considered The Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 and its application which is intended to promote transparency, consistency and fairness in sentencing (See Michael Kathewa Laichena & another v Republic [2018] eKLR).
8. The post mortem report on record reveals that deceased died of severed neck and head injuries caused by a sharp object
9. Under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 75 of the Laws of Kenya), the court is entitled to take into account the period the Petitioner has spent in custody in determining the sentence. The court record shows that the petitioner has served 10 years but has been in custody for 13 years from the date of his arrest.
10. The Petitioner did not annex any certificate to demonstrate that he had undertaken any course as a means of reformation. His home report is favourable. He is remorseful and regrets his actions.
11. I have considered the mitigating and aggravating factors. It is not lost to this court that the Petitioner without any provocation, killed the deceased in the most painful way of severing his neck. Deceased’s life was lost through no fault on his part.
12. Whereas no length of sentence can restore life, I re-sentence Petitioner to twenty five (25) years’ imprisonment from date of his arrest on 09th March, 2009 which time in my considered view will give him time to reflect on his actions and come out of prison a better person.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - KinotiPetitioner - PresentFor the State - Ms. Kitoto ( PPC)