[2019] KEHC 2970 (KLR)
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's guidance in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence is not automatic and courts have discretion to impose an appropriate sentence based on the circumstances. The petitioner, having served 20 years, demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation, and a positive prison record....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 2970 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Peter Warui Mugo; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 48 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition allowed in part; sentence varied
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Mandatory Death Sentence, Fundamental Rights, Probation and Rehabilitation
- 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 Warui Mugo
Petitioner
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu v Republic [2017] eKLR.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner in light of the circumstances of the offence and his rehabilitation record.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's guidance in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence is not automatic and courts have discretion to impose an appropriate sentence based on the circumstances. The petitioner, having served 20 years, demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation, and a positive prison record. The offence, though grave, did not result in bodily harm. The court found that a sentence of 23 years was adequate, with the remaining 3 years to be served under probation, balancing the interests of justice, rehabilitation, and public safety. The petitioner was ordered released from prison to serve the probationary period, subject to compliance with probation conditions.
Court Disposition
petition allowed in part; sentence varied
Orders
- The petitioner is sentenced to twenty three (23) years in prison.
- Of the above twenty three (23) years, three (3) years are suspended to be served under probation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. 48 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 (SUPERVISORY
JURISDICTION AND PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMOF
AN INDIVIDUAL) HIGH COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES 2013
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLE 22(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLE 23(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
27,28,48, 50, 258 AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION
BETWEEN
PETER WARUI MUGO.....................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION..................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner herein seeks a resentencing pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu vs. Republic [2017] eKLR.
2. The Petitioner was tried and convicted of robbery with violence in the Mombasa Chief Magistrate Court Criminal Case No. 3463 of 1999. He was sentenced to death and has been in jail for 20 years. The Petitioner was involved in robbery with violence where two victims who were shop owners were attacked just after opening their shop. They were ordered to lie down as the Petitioner pointed a pistol at them. The Petitioner and his accomplice tied the hand of the victims using ropes and covered their mouths with cello tape and threatened them with death if they dared raise an alarm. They broke into the victims safe, took Kshs. 32,000/= and wrist watches belonging to the two victims. Before they left the Petitioner shot in the air to scare people away.
3. Mr. Fedha, learned counsel for the prosecution, prayed for a definite sentence of 25 years including years served due to the circumstance of the offence.
4. The Petitioner submitted that he has served 20 years in jail and during the said years he has been peaceful with fellow inmates and prison authorities since he has undergone several rehabilitation, spiritual and commercial programs which will assist him when he re-joins the society.
5. I have carefully considered the issue at hand. The aim of punishment is Community Protection, Deterrence, Retribution, Restorative Justice, Rehabilitation and Reformation. The offence which was committed by the Petitioner is grave and should be properly punished. The Petitioner is now 55 years. He has a good record in prison and he is humble polite God fearing and he is an SDA elder.
6. The Petitioner is remorseful of his past. He did not cause any bodily harm to the victims. He states that he has reformed. His submission is backed by the prison progress report from Shimo La Tewa Maximum Security Prison which states that the Petitioner is well behaved and reformed and has undertaken biblical studies.
7. The Probation Report filed in Court on 28th August, 2019 is favourable to the Petitioner, and proposes that he be released back to society and placed under their care and supervision for further rehabilitation, resettlement and re-integration.
8. The Petitioner has served 20 years in prison. I have considered The Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016and its application which is intended to promote transparency, consistency and fairness in sentencing (See Michael Kathewa Laichena & another v Republic [2018] eKLR).
9. Accordingly, I accept the submissions of the prosecution that 25 years is adequate punishment. However, considering that there was no actual bodily harm involved in the robbery, this Court orders that the Petitioner be and is hereby sentenced to (23) years in prison. The Petitioner has served twenty (20) years already. The remaining three (3) years shall be suspended during which time the Petitioner shall be under probation. Accordingly, Judgment is made as under:
I. The Petitioner is sentenced to twenty three (23) years in prison.
II. Of the above twenty three (23) years three (3) years are suspended to be served under probation.
III. The Busia County Probation Officer shall supervise this order on probation.
IV. During the probation period the Petitioner shall not be engaged in any offence, and if he does, the suspended sentence herein will automatically lapse, and the Petitioner shall be taken to Shimo La Tewa Prison to serve the balance of the sentence, and any other lawful sentence.
V. The Petitioner is herewith forthwith released from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.
That is the Judgment of the Court.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Mombasa this 4th day of November, 2019.
E. K. OGOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Fedha for DPP
Petitioner in person
Mr. Kaunda Court Assistant