[2018] KEHC 3439 (KLR)
The court, guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Petition No. 15/2015 (Murwateti & Anor v Republic), found that the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional and that sentencing should be individualized based on mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered the accused's status as a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3439 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Republic; Respondent: Daniel Kitsao
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 103 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Law / Sentencing
- Outcome
- convicted and sentenced
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing Guidelines, Mitigation Factors, Mandatory Death Sentence, Remorsefulness, Custodial Sentence
- 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
Republic
Appellant
Daniel Kitsao
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Petition No. 15/2015.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the accused considering the mitigating and aggravating factors.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Petition No. 15/2015 (Murwateti & Anor v Republic), found that the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional and that sentencing should be individualized based on mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered the accused's status as a first offender, his age, the period spent in custody, and his claim of remorsefulness. However, the court also noted the accused's persistent denial of the offence throughout the trial and the lack of explanation for the killing. Balancing these factors, the court determined that a custodial sentence of 30 years imprisonment, commencing from the date of arrest, was appropriate in...
Court Disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to 30 years imprisonment to run from date of arrest, 27/01/2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI
HCCR. NO. 103 OF 2017
REPUBLIC....................................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
DANIEL KITSAO.....................................RESPONDENT
SENTENCING
INTRODUCTION
1. The accused was charged with offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code.
2 The particulars being that on 27/01/2013, at annex Makuti Bar and Restaurant Lodgings in Mtito Andei Township, Kibwezi District within Makueni County murdered Monicha Matheka.
3. The circumstances surrounding the murder in the instant matter are set out in the judgment. He was convicted with the offence charged.
4. In mitigation via his advocate the accused says;
He is the first offender.
He is single.
He is remorseful and repentant.
He has been in custody since 27/01/2013 (about 5 years or so).
Relying on the case of Petition No. 15/2015 SCOK Murwateti & Anor –Vs- Republic and Others, urges the court to mete out sentence appropriately without being constrained to the traditional death sentence which prior to above petition was mandatory.
5. The prosecution led by Mr. Kihara lamented that there are a lot of murders taking place thus court should award deterrent sentence.
6. In Murwateti case Supra the SCOK held that;
“……Section 204 Penal Code is in consistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that it provides for the mandatory death sentence for murder. For avoidance of doubt, this decision does not outlaw death penalty, which is still applicable as discretionary maximum sentence.”
7. The court issued guidelines with regard to mitigating factors in re-hearing sentence for conviction of a murder charge;
Age of offender.
Being 1st offender.
Whether offender pleaded guilty.
Character and record of the offender.
Commission of the offence in response to gender based violence.
Remorsefulness of the offender.
The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender.
Any other factor that the court considers relevant.
8. The court notes that after killing the deceased, the accused was arrested in the room with the deceased body but throughout the trial, he denied ever killing the deceased.
9. He claimed to have gone to see the sources of some screams in the bar when he was arrested. He persisted on proving a defence of alibi.
10. He now says he is remorseful and repentant and has been in custody since 27/01/2013 and that he is 26 years and single.
11. The court has taken into account all the above factors. One thing he never says and we may never know, is why he killed the deceased whom he did enter room to spend with in a lodging.
12. The court taking all factors into account and the circumstances of the instant case, makes the following order in sentencing;
-The accused is sentenced to 30 years imprisonment to run from date of arrest, 27/01/2013.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018, IN OPEN COURT.
......................
C. KARIUKI
JUDGE