[2021] KEHC 2266 (KLR)
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu is expressly confined to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code and does not extend to other offences such as robbery with violence under section 296(2). Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2266 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Patrick Ndunde; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 6 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
- Outcome
- petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Robbery With Violence, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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 Ndunde
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a sentence for robbery with violence based on the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the Muruatetu decision applies to offences other than murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu is expressly confined to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code and does not extend to other offences such as robbery with violence under section 296(2). Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the petitioner's sentence for robbery with violence on the basis of Muruatetu. The petition was therefore struck out as incompetent.
Court Disposition
petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The petition is struck out as incompetent.
- The file is closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6 OF 2020
PATRICK NDUNDE...................................................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter was placed before me for the purpose of giving directions, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ), with respect to mandatory sentences, where it was clarified that the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), had arisen from proceedings relating to murder, under section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, and the position stated in the said decision was intended to apply only to mandatory sentences with respect to murder cases.
2. The petition herein, undated and filed herein on an unknown date, principally rides on the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), for the petitioner seeks review of his sentence, where he had been convicted of robbery with violence, under section 296(2) of the Penal Code, in Kakamega CMCCRC No. 3120 of 2007, and was sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the President of the Republic of Kenya. He filed appeal in Kakamega HCCRA No. 134 of 2010 and Kisumu CACRA No. 57 of 2014, both of which were dismissed by the appellate court.
3. The offence, the subject of the instant proceedings, is not murder, but robbery with violence, as defined in section 296(2) of the Penal Code, the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), therefore, does not apply to it. As a consequence, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence that was imposed by the trial court, based on the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ). Since there is no jurisdiction on my part to entertain the petition, I shall strike it out, for it is incompetent. The said file shall be closed.
4. The Deputy Registrar to cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the petitioner and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
PREPARED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE