[2024] KEHC 15103 (KLR)
The court held that the petitioner had already benefited from the application of the Muruatetu I decision, which resulted in the reduction of his sentence from life imprisonment to 30 years. Subsequent clarifications in Muruatetu II and the Joshua Gichuki Mwangi case established that the minimum sentences under the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15103 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Otieno Okuto alias Mohamed; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 33 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- Petition dismissed; sentence review declined.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Sentencing Principles, Minimum Sentences, Sentence Review, Sexual Offences Act, Application of Muruatetu
- 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
John Otieno Okuto alias Mohamed
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further review of sentence after benefiting from the Muruatetu I decision.
- 2 Whether the minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act are constitutional and binding.
- 3 Whether Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner had already benefited from the application of the Muruatetu I decision, which resulted in the reduction of his sentence from life imprisonment to 30 years. Subsequent clarifications in Muruatetu II and the Joshua Gichuki Mwangi case established that the minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act are lawful and constitutional, leaving no further discretion for the court to review or reduce the sentence. Additionally, Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was found inapplicable to the petitioner’s original life sentence, as such sentences do not attract credits for time spent in custody. The court therefore declined to entertain any further...
Court Disposition
Petition dismissed; sentence review declined.
Orders
- The petition for sentence review is declined.
- No further sentence review will be entertained for the convict.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Okuto alias Mohamed v Republic (Criminal Petition 33 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 15103 (KLR) (22 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15103 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Criminal Petition 33 of 2023
RE Aburili, J
November 22, 2024
Between
John Otieno Okuto alias Mohamed
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Petitioner is John Otieno Okuto alias Mohammed. He is a convict in Bondo SPM SO Case No. 35 /2018 where he was sentenced to serve life imprisonment for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act.
2. He appealed vide Siaya HCRA 32/2018 which appeal was allowed on sentence being reduced to 30 years imprisonment on 12/6/2019, when the court invoked the Francis Muruatetu& another v Republic [2017]eKLR decision on the constitutionality of Mandatoriness of minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences.
3. In this case, the Petitioner is lucky to have benefited from the Muruatetu 1 decision before it was clarified in Muruatetu II and the Joshua Gichuki Mwangi (2024) eKLR cases, with findings that the minimum sentences as enacted in the Sexual offences Act are lawful. That being the case, I find no residual discretion left to review the sentence impose don the Petitioner which was reduced by the High Court vide HCRA 32/2028.
4. Accordingly, this petition for sentence review is hereby declined, the Petitioner having been accorded a less severe sentence.
5. Furthermore, the convict cannot claim that Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not applied since in the first place, he was sentenced to life imprisonment which has no credits for the time spent in custody.
6. This court did re-impose on him the less severe sentence which he is serving and therefore since the life imprisonment was lawful with this Court reducing it, the convict cannot seek more discretion from this court.
7. I decline to entertain any more sentence review for the convict herein and dismiss the petition dated 10/7/2023. This file is closed. Signal to issue.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 22NDDAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGE