[2024] KEHC 1686 (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 considered the gravity of the offence, including the unprovoked nature and multiple stab wounds inflicted, but also took into account the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1686 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peterson Muthee Muranga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E0484 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Resentencing Ruling After Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Sentence
- Outcome
- petition for resentencing allowed; petitioner resentenced to 25 years imprisonment from date of conviction
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Mandatory Death Sentence, Murder, Constitutional Rights, Mitigation, 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
Peterson Muthee Muranga
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Resentencing Ruling After Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision declaring the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner given the circumstances of the offence and his 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 considered the gravity of the offence, including the unprovoked nature and multiple stab wounds inflicted, but also took into account the petitioner's remorse, reformation, and the nine years already served. The court held that continued incarceration for life would serve no meaningful purpose and that a determinate sentence would better serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner was resentenced to 25 years imprisonment, with the sentence to run from the date of conviction, 30th May 2014.
Court Disposition
petition for resentencing allowed; petitioner resentenced to 25 years imprisonment from date of conviction
Orders
- Petitioner is resentenced to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment.
- The sentence shall be computed from 30th May, 2014, the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Muranga v Republic (Petition E0484 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1686 (KLR) (22 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1686 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Petition E0484 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
February 22, 2024
Between
Peterson Muthee Muranga
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. On 30th May, 2014, Petitioner was sentenced to suffer death for the offence of murder. His appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Peterson Muthee Muranga v Republic [2017] eKLR was dismissed on 10th October, 2017.
2. Petitioner prays for resentence on the ground that he is remorseful and has reformed.
3. The state through Ms.Rita learned counsel for the DPP opposed the petition on the ground that
4. Whereas 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 death sentence for murder.
5. I have considered that the offence herein was unprovoked and involved stab wounds on right thumb, three stab wounds on the back, one stab wound on the neck, one stab wound on the upper left lung and one stab wound on the lower right side that led to deceased dying of hemorrhagic shock.
6. Petitioner has served 9 years since the date of his conviction on 30th May, 2014 and whereas it is in the interests of justice that crime should be punished, punishment that is excessive serves neither the interests of justice nor those of society. (See South African case S v Scott-Crossley 2008 (1) SACR 223 (SCA) at para 35 ).
7. Flowing from the foregoing, I find that it would not serve any meaningful purpose to confine Petitioner to a life of hopelessness. I am therefore persuaded to resentence Petitioner to a determinate sentence.
8. In the end, Petitioner is resentenced to (twenty-five) 25 years imprisonment and there being no evidence concerning the date of his arrest, the sentence shall be computed from 30th May, 2014 when he was convicted.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 22nd DAY OF February 2024WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEIn the presence of-Court Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneApplicant - PresentFor DPP - Ms. Rita (PC-1)