[2021] KEHC 7416 (KLR)
The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to resentence the applicant, as the original trial for robbery with violence was conducted by the magistrate's court. In line with the Supreme Court's guidance in Muruatetu, the court held that the appropriate forum for considering mitigation and resentencing is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7416 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Muriuki Karoki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application After Conviction and Dismissal of Appeals
- Outcome
- Application transferred to Chief Magistrate for hearing and determination.
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Resentencing, Mandatory Sentences, Jurisdiction, Mitigation, Supreme Court Guidance
- 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
Paul Muriuki Karoki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application After Conviction and Dismissal of Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to resentence an applicant convicted of robbery with violence by a magistrate's court.
- 2 Whether the application for resentencing should be heard by the court that originally tried the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to resentence the applicant, as the original trial for robbery with violence was conducted by the magistrate's court. In line with the Supreme Court's guidance in Muruatetu, the court held that the appropriate forum for considering mitigation and resentencing is the court that initially heard the matter. Consequently, the application was directed to be placed before the Chief Magistrate for hearing and determination, without delving into the merits of the resentencing request.
Court Disposition
Application transferred to Chief Magistrate for hearing and determination.
Orders
- The application for resentencing is to be placed before the Chief Magistrate for hearing and determination.
- The matter is to be mentioned before the Chief Magistrate on 11th May 2021 for directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL PETITION NUMBER 3 OF 2019
PAUL MURIUKI KAROKI.......................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..............................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The petitioner herein was charged, tried and found guilty of the offence of Robbery with Violence Contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code in 589 of 2000. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. His appeals here and above were dismissed on 24th February 2006 and 12th November 2015 respectively.
2. The petitioner herein filed undated Notice of Motion supported by his affidavit seeking orders;
1. THAT application be certified urgent and be heard on priority basis.
2. THAT the honorable court be pleased to hear a re- sentence and mete out the appropriate sentence.
3. He relies on the case cited as Wiliam Okungu Kittiny vs R [2018] eKLR and the principle laid out in the Muruatetu Case.
4. When the application was heard he urged this court to proceed and resentence him accordingly.
5. The state through Ms. Murunga pointed out that the applicant having been charged with robbery with violence, the rightful place for his application was before the Chief Magistrate.
6. The applicant in response pointed out that this court had recently resentenced other applicants facing similar situations. Those matters are cases where the matter was heard by this court i.e murder cases. For robbery with violence cases those matters were heard by the learned magistrates. The learned prosecuting counsel is right.
7. This is in line with the Supreme Court’s holding in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLRatparagraph 111where it is stated:
It is prudent for the same Court that heard this matter to consider and evaluate mitigating submissions and evaluate the appropriate sentence befitting the offence committed by the petitioners.
8. Without going into the merits of the application, I direct that the same be placed before the Chief Magistrate for hearing and determination.
9. The matter be mentioned before the Chief Magistrate on the 11th May 2021 for directions.
DATED AND DELIVERED VIA ZOOM THIS 27TH APRIL 2021.
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
In the presence of;
Edna Court Assistant
For State: Ms Murunga
Applicant: Present at Nakuru Main GK prison via ZOOM
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge