[2021] KEHC 7527 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7527 (KLR)

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu, it had discretion to resentence the applicants. The court considered that the applicants were first offenders, young at the time of the offence, and had shown remorse and reform. While the offence was brutal and unprovoked,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 7527 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Mathare; Applicant: Peter Mathare; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 90 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Resentencing Application After Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
application allowed; sentence varied
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Resentencing, Murder Conviction, Supreme Court Guidance, First Offender Principle
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Resentencing Murder Conviction Supreme Court Guidance First Offender Principle

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mathare

Applicant

Peter Mathare

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Resentencing Application After Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu.
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances of the offence and the applicants' status as first offenders warrant a reduction of sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu, it had discretion to resentence the applicants. The court considered that the applicants were first offenders, young at the time of the offence, and had shown remorse and reform. While the offence was brutal and unprovoked, the court determined that the mandatory life sentence was not appropriate in the circumstances. Applying the principles of sentencing, including the need to encourage reform and discourage recidivism, the court set aside the life sentences and substituted them with a determinate term of 20 years' imprisonment for each applicant, effective from the date of their initial sentencing.

Court Disposition

application allowed; sentence varied

Orders

  • The sentence of life imprisonment against each applicant is set aside.
  • Each applicant is sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment effective from 13th October 2015.