[2021] KEHC 9566 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 9566 (KLR)

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death penalty for robbery with violence is unconstitutional, and courts have discretion to resentence. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the Petitioner's mitigation, and the twelve...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 9566 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Omar Bakari; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 139 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Resentencing Following Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Death sentence set aside; Petitioner resentenced to 17 years imprisonment from date of conviction.
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Robbery With Violence, Mandatory Sentencing, Resentencing, Mitigation, Death Penalty, Constitutional Rights
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Robbery With Violence Mandatory Sentencing Resentencing Mitigation Death Penalty Constitutional Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omar Bakari

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Resentencing Following Supreme Court Decision

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the Petitioner following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR.
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner's mitigation and period already served should affect the sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death penalty for robbery with violence is unconstitutional, and courts have discretion to resentence. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the Petitioner's mitigation, and the twelve years already served, the court determined that a sentence of seventeen years' imprisonment from the date of conviction is adequate punishment. The death sentence imposed by the trial court was therefore set aside and replaced with a custodial sentence.

Court Disposition

Death sentence set aside; Petitioner resentenced to 17 years imprisonment from date of conviction.

Orders

  • The death sentence imposed upon the Petitioner by the trial court is set aside.
  • The Petitioner is sentenced to a term of seventeen (17) years imprisonment from the date of conviction.