[2024] KEHC 5130 (KLR)
The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court held that only mitigation presented at the time of trial should be considered in resentencing, not fresh mitigation or post-conviction conduct. After...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5130 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Caleb Ojwand Ochido; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 91 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Resentencing Application / Ruling on Resentencing Application
- Outcome
- death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 25 years imprisonment from 23 June 2000
- Judges
- SC Chirchir
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Mandatory Death Penalty, Mitigation, Constitutional Rights, Sentencing Discretion
- 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
Caleb Ojwand Ochido
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Resentencing Application / Ruling on Resentencing Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner should be set aside in light of the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the court should consider fresh mitigation or only mitigation presented at trial during resentencing.
- 3 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner given the circumstances of the offence and mitigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the petitioner was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court held that only mitigation presented at the time of trial should be considered in resentencing, not fresh mitigation or post-conviction conduct. After reviewing the petitioner's mitigation at trial, his age, lack of prior convictions, and the aggravating circumstances of the offence—including the attempt to conceal the crime by placing the victim in a sack while still alive—the court determined that the appropriate sentence was 25 years imprisonment, effective from the original date of conviction. The death sentence was therefore...
Court Disposition
death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 25 years imprisonment from 23 June 2000
Orders
- The death sentence passed on 4th April 2005 is hereby set aside.
- The petitioner is sentenced to 25 years in prison, effective from 23rd June 2000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Ochido v Republic (Petition 91 of 2019) [2024] KEHC 5130 (KLR) (25 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5130 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Petition 91 of 2019
SC Chirchir, J
April 25, 2024
In the matter of Articles 22(1), 1(3), 3(2),(4),9(1),25, 26, 27(1),28, 29, 160(1), 159, 156 of the constitution of Kenya and section 261 of the criminal procedure code CAP 75 laws of Kenya.
Between
Caleb Ojwand Ochido
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Through the undated Notice of Motion filed on 22nd November 2019, the petitioner seeks for re-sentencing. It is apparent that the Application was prompted by the directions given by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Francis Karioki Muruatetu and Ano vs Republic (2017) eKLR.
2. In the Muruatetu case ( Supra ) the Supreme Court held that the death sentence prescribed under section 204 of the Penal Court is unconstitutional as it takes away the discretion of the court when it comes to sentencing.
3. Further the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu and another versus Republic (2021) eKLR gave the liberty to any convict who had bee sentenced to death to apply for resentencing.
4. Under paragraph 18 (iii) of the directions the court directed as follows: “ all offenders who have been subjected to the mandatory death penalty and desire to be heard on sentence will be entitled to resentencing hearing”
Determination 5. The petitioner has filed what he has called “Mitigation Submissions”. However, I need to point out that what the court needs to consider are the mitigations that the petitioner made before the court at the time of trial. This is because the rationale behind the decision in Muruatetu case , as I understand it, is that notwithstanding the mitigation that the convict may have submitted to court, the said mitigation had no bearing on the sentence as the prescribed sentence was mandatory. What this court is required to do therefore is to look at the mitigation made at the time , and make a finding on the appropriate sentence. The purported “fresh mitigation”, including the conduct of the convict since being sentenced, has no bearing in this resentencing hearing.
6. In his submissions, through his advocate, the petitioner told the court as follows: ”That he was 46 years old, he was remorseful, he has a family and his oldest child was 20 years old and his youngest was 7 years old. The children require parental care. The accused has been in custody a long time.”
7. I have considered the petitioner’s mitigation as above. There was no indication that he was a repeat offender, so I’ll take it that he was a first offender. I’ve also taken into consideration his age. As per the psychiatric report dated 20th march 2003, the petitioner was 43 years. He should therefore be about 64 years now.
8. However, I’ve also considered the circumstances of the offence. It is not known why the petitioner struck his mother on the head. In his defense he called it an accident. Both the high court and the court of appeal thrashed his defense.
9. It further came out in the evidence that he made no attempt to seek medical attention for his mother. Instead he put her in a sack while she was still alive. Obviously putting his mother in a sack was an attempt to dispose of the body and conceal his crime.
10. Taking into account all the aforegoing I hereby set aside a, the death sentence and substitute it with 25 years imprisonment.
11. Final orders:a.The death sentence passed on 4th April 2005 is hereby set asideb.The petitioner is sentenced to 25 years in prison . The sentence to take effect from 23th June 2000.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI, VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS, THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2024. S.CHIRCHIRJUDGEIn the presence of :Godwin- Court AssistantThe petitioner.