[2023] KEHC 24613 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's plea for re-sentencing because the petitioner's appeal had already been determined by a 2-judge bench of the High Court. The only available recourse for the petitioner is to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24613 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Boniface Anguka Nalianya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 22 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Right to Fair Trial, Resentencing, Jurisdiction of High Court, Robbery With Violence
- 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
Boniface Anguka Nalianya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to re-sentence a petitioner whose appeal was dismissed by a 2-judge bench of the High Court.
- 2 Whether the Maraga & Muruatetu jurisprudence on mandatory sentences applies to robbery with violence cases under section 296(2) of the Penal Code.
- 3 Whether the period spent in custody should be considered in sentencing for robbery with violence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's plea for re-sentencing because the petitioner's appeal had already been determined by a 2-judge bench of the High Court. The only available recourse for the petitioner is to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the jurisprudence from the Muruatetu case, which declared the mandatory nature of the death penalty for murder unconstitutional, does not extend to cases of robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code. As such, the petition for re-sentencing and consideration of time spent in custody was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
- The petitioner is advised that his recourse lies with the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Nalianya v Republic (Petition 22 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 24613 (KLR) (3 November 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24613 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Bungoma
Petition 22 of 2019
REA Ougo, J
November 3, 2023
N THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 23, 25 (A) (C), 28, 20 (1), 50 (2)(Q), 19 (1) (2), 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 296 (2) OF THE PENAL CODE BETWEEN
Between
Boniface Anguka Nalianya
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. Boniface Anguka Nalianya, the petitioner, in his petition filed on the 23rd April 2019 he avers that he was charged with the offence of Robbery with Violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code vide CRC No. 1689/2009 at CM’s Court Bungoma and sentenced to death. That he appealed to the High Court vide HCCRA No. 34 of 2009 at Bungoma and his appeal was dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the High Court decision he appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2010 and up to now he has not been given any number. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the president in 2009. He has been in custody for the last 9 years since his arrest. He prays that this court be pleased to grant orders for revision of sentence in respect of Robbery with Violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code vide CRC No. 1689/ 2009 at CM’s Court Bungoma and also to consider the period spent in custody since his arrest. The latter is his main pray in his Notice Motion which was filed simultaneously with the petition. He reiterates what he has deponed in his petition in his supporting affidavit.
2. At the hearing of his petition, the petitioner sought to be re-sentenced. He stated that he did not go to the Court of Appeal.
3. The respondent opposed the application. Miss Omondi submitted the petitioner appeal in the High Court was dismissed by a 2-judge bench. Though he bases his petition on the Marutatetu case the said case does not apply to his case which was one of robbery with violence. This court lacks the jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of the 2-judge bench and his recourse is to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
4. Having considered the petition, and the submissions and noting that the petitioner’s appeal was heard by a 2-judge bench in the High Court, I am of the view that this court lacks the jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s plea for re-sentencing. His only recourse as stated is before the Court of Appeal. His petition therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. R.E. OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of;Boniface Anguka Nalianya/ PetitionerFor the RespondentWilkister- C/A