[2019] KEHC 7114 (KLR)
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional, and courts must exercise discretion in sentencing after considering mitigation. The petitioners, having been in custody since 2004, were first offenders but committed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7114 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Kaberu Mugo; Appellant: Francis Maingi Mwaura; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 5 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Petition / Re Sentencing After Supreme Court Directions
- Outcome
- Petition for re-sentencing allowed; death sentence set aside and substituted with 20 years' imprisonment for each petitioner, effective from 3rd March 2005.
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Mandatory Sentencing, Resentencing Guidelines, Mitigation, Death Penalty, Custodial 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
Peter Kaberu Mugo
Appellant
Francis Maingi Mwaura
Appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Petition / Re Sentencing After Supreme Court Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioners are entitled to re-sentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioners in light of the circumstances and mitigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional, and courts must exercise discretion in sentencing after considering mitigation. The petitioners, having been in custody since 2004, were first offenders but committed a violent felony. The court weighed the aggravating circumstances of the offence against the mitigating factors, including the petitioners' conduct in prison, positive recommendations, and the period already served. The court found that a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, running from the date of original conviction, was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Petition for re-sentencing allowed; death sentence set aside and substituted with 20 years' imprisonment for each petitioner, effective from 3rd March 2005.
Orders
- Each petitioner is re-sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.
- The sentence shall run from 3rd March 2005, the date of original conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
PETITION NO. 5 OF 2018
PETER KABERU MUGO.....................................1ST PETITIONER
FRANCIS MAINGI MWAURA...........................2ND PETITIONER
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS..........RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners were adjudged guilty of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer death.
2. Their trial was conducted by G. Mwaura, the learned Principal Magistrate in Murang’a Criminal Case Number 704 of 2004.
3. The consolidated appeals to the High Court at Nyeri in Criminal Appeals Numbers 67 and 69 of 2005 were dismissed by Kasango J and Makhandia J on 7th May 2008.
4. Their final appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nyeri in Criminal Appeal Number 72 of 2008 was equally dismissed.
5. The particulars of the charge and facts of the case are well captured in the Court of Appeal judgment. From the nature of the present petition, I see no reason to regurgitate them.
6. This is not a fresh appeal. It is a petition for re-sentencing following the directions by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic, Consolidated Petitions Nos. 15 & 16 of 2015 [2017] eKLR. The court declared that the death sentence has not been outlawed; but it is no longer mandatory. The learned judges held-
“The mandatorynature of the death sentence as provided for under Section 204 of the Penal Code is hereby declared unconstitutional. For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not disturb the validity of the death sentence as contemplated under Article 26 (3) of the Constitution.” [Emphasis added]
7. The Supreme Court then gave the following directions-
“[111] 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. For the avoidance of doubt, the sentencing re-hearing we have allowed, applies only for the two petitioners herein. In the meantime, existing or intending Petitioners with similar cases ought not approach the Supreme Court directly but await appropriate guidelines for disposal of the same. The Attorney General is directed to urgently set up a framework to deal with sentence re-hearing of cases relating to the mandatory nature of the death sentence - which is similar to that of the petitioners in this case.”
8. The Supreme Court further directed the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and other relevant agencies to prepare a detailed professional review with a view to setting up a framework to deal with sentence re-hearing. A report was to be submitted within 12 months of the judgment (now past).
9. The High Court has jurisdiction to re-sentence the petitioners notwithstanding the lack of the framework by those government agencies. See William Okungu Kittiny v Republic,Court of Appeal at Kisumu, Criminal Appeal 56 of 2013 (2018) eKLR, Michael Kathewa Laichena & Another v Republic, High Court, Meru, Petition 19 of 2017 [2018] eKLR.
10. The original sentence of death for the petitioners has since been commuted to life imprisonment.
11. The learned Prosecution Counsel, Ms. Gichuru, left the matter of re-sentencing to the discretion of the court.
12. I am alive that both petitioners were granted a full opportunity to mitigate in the lower court. The 1st petitioner (who was the 2nd accused) said: “I wish to say that I was defeated [sic] because I do not know how to offer a defence. I have children who rely on me”. The 2nd petitioner (who was the 1st accused) only said that he “did not commit the offence.”
13. The petitioners have been in custody since 4th May 2004 when they took plea. They now plead for leniency. They said they have reformed and learnt useful trades in prison including carpentry and upholstery. The 1st petitioner tendered a positive recommendation from the Officer in Charge Murang’a Prison dated 28th June 2018.
14. I have considered the original mitigation and the fresh clamour for clemency. The petitioners were first offenders but they engaged in an orgy of violence during the robbery. Robbery with violence is a serious felony that still attracts the sentence of death.
15. Considering the extenuating and aggravating factors; the period spent in pre-trial and post-sentence custody, I re-sentence each petitioner to 20 years’ imprisonment. For the avoidance of doubt, the sentences shall run from 3rd March 2005, the date of their original conviction.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 4th day of June 2019.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Judgment read in open court in the presence of:-
Both petitioners.
Ms. R. Gichuru for the Republic instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Ms. Dorcas and Ms. Elizabeth, Court Clerks.