[2021] KEHC 2123 (KLR)
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu is limited to murder cases and does not extend to other offences such as robbery with violence. The applicants' request for re-sentencing based on Muruatetu was therefore not tenable. The Supreme Court expressly directed that its decision should not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2123 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Muma Isaiah; Applicant: Stephen Wafula Kuriati; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E221 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- application and petition for re-sentencing dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Re Sentencing, Mandatory Sentences, Supreme Court Guidance, Robbery With Violence, Constitutional Validity of Sentences
- 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
Patrick Muma Isaiah
Applicant
Stephen Wafula Kuriati
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu applies to offences other than murder for purposes of re-sentencing.
- 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to re-sentencing under the current legal framework.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu is limited to murder cases and does not extend to other offences such as robbery with violence. The applicants' request for re-sentencing based on Muruatetu was therefore not tenable. The Supreme Court expressly directed that its decision should not be applied to other statutes prescribing mandatory or minimum sentences, and that any challenge to such sentences in other offences must be properly brought before the courts. Consequently, the application and petition for re-sentencing were dismissed as the legal basis relied upon by the applicants was inapplicable to their case.
Court Disposition
application and petition for re-sentencing dismissed
Orders
- The chamber summons and the petition for re-sentencing filed on 27th May, 2020 are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E221 OF 2021
1. PATRICK MUMA ISAIAH
2. STEPHEN WAFULA KURIATI..........................................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. PATRICK MUMA ISAIAHand STEPHEN WAFULA KURIATI,the applicants, have filed a chamber summons application seeking re-sentencing in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in FRANCIS KARIOKO MURUATETU & ANOTHER VS. REPUBLIC.
2. The two applicants have also filed a petition seeking similar prayers.
3. The application and the petition cannot be granted as sought because the Supreme Court gave a direction in the Petition No. 15 & 16 (consolidated) of 2015 FRANCIS KARIOKO MURUATETU & WILSON THIRIMBU MWANGI VS. REPUBLIC, as follows:-
“[7] In the meantime, it is public knowledge, and taking judicial notice, we doagree with the observations of bothMr. Hassan and Mr. Ochiel,that while the report of the Task Force appointed by the Attorney General was awaited, courts below us have embarked on their own interpretation of this decision, applying it to cases relating toSection 296(2) of the Penal Code, and others under the Sexual Offences Act, presumably assuming that the decision by this Court in this particular matter was equally applicable to other statutes prescribing mandatory or minimum sentences. We state..., there can be no justification for courts below us, to take the course that has now resulted in the pitiable state of incertitude and incoherence in the sentencing framework in the country, giving rise to an avalanche of applications for re-sentencing...We therefore reiterate that, this Court’s decision inMuruatetu,did not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code, the Sexual Offences Act or any other statute...
[15] To clear the confusion that exists with regard to the mandatory death sentence in offences other than murder, we direct in respect of other capital offences such as treason under Section 40 (3), robbery with violence under Section 296 (2), and attempted robbery with violence under Section 297 (2) of the Penal Code, that a challenge on the constitutional validity of the mandatory death penalty in such cases should be properly filed, presented, and fully argued before the High Court and escalated to the Court of Appeal, if necessary, at which a similar outcome as that in this case may be reached.Muruatetuas it now stands cannot directly be applicable to those cases.” (Underlining mine)
4. Muruatetu’s case cannot be applied to grant an order for re-sentencing as sought by the application. This is because Muruatetu’s principles only apply in murder cases. It follows the chamber summons and the petition for re-sentencing filed on 27th May, 2020 is dismissed.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram:
COURT ASSISTANT: MAURICE
FOR THE APPLICANTS: N/A
FOR THE RESPONDENT: KASYOKA
COURT
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE