[2021] KEHC 3891 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 3891 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's claim that the death sentence is unconstitutional is unfounded. The death sentence remains constitutional under Article 26(3) of the Constitution, and the Francis Muruatetu case did not abolish the death penalty but only addressed its mandatory nature. The applicant's sentence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 3891 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Omondi Ndar; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E006 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application Challenging Constitutionality of Sentence
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Sentencing Principles, Constitutionality of Death Penalty
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Fair Trial Sentencing Principles Constitutionality of Death Penalty

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Omondi Ndar

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application Challenging Constitutionality of Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the death sentence imposed on the applicant is unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief based on the Francis Muruatetu decision.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied the opportunity to mitigate before sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim that the death sentence is unconstitutional is unfounded. The death sentence remains constitutional under Article 26(3) of the Constitution, and the Francis Muruatetu case did not abolish the death penalty but only addressed its mandatory nature. The applicant's sentence had already been commuted to life imprisonment by the President, which is the least severe sentence as per Article 50(2)(p). Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any proceedings or judgments to support his assertion that he was denied the opportunity to mitigate before sentencing. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • File closed.