[2018] KEHC 6220 (KLR)
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional as it violates the right to a fair trial by not allowing consideration of mitigating factors. The court considered the accused's age, status as a first offender, lack of prior criminal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6220 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Kevin Omwanza Oua alias Junior
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 18 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentencing
- Outcome
- accused sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for murder
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing Guidelines, Mitigating Factors, Death Penalty, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Applicant
Kevin Omwanza Oua alias Junior
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death penalty for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code is constitutional.
- 2 What sentence is appropriate for the accused, considering the mitigating factors and the Supreme Court's guidance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional as it violates the right to a fair trial by not allowing consideration of mitigating factors. The court considered the accused's age, status as a first offender, lack of prior criminal record, and remorsefulness as mitigating factors. However, the court also weighed the gravity of the offence, noting that the accused's unprovoked actions resulted in the loss of a young life and caused irreparable harm to the victim's family. Balancing these factors, the court exercised its discretion and imposed a custodial sentence of 25 years' imprisonment instead of the...
Court Disposition
accused sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for murder
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 25 years.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN TH HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18 OF 2013
REPUBLIC.................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
KEVIN OMWANZA OUA alias JUNIOR.......ACCUSED
SENTENCE
1. In my judgment in this matter dated 16th May 2018, I found the accused, Kevin Omwanza Oua, guilty of the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It was my finding that he had, on the 26th day of April 2013, at Standard Bar in Sondu Township in Kericho West District of Kericho County, murdered Edwin Kibet Cheruiyot.
2. I further directed that a social inquiry report be prepared in respect of the accused to assist this court in reaching an appropriate sentence. A report has been prepared by the Probation Office, Kericho, and was filed on day of June 2018.
3. The report indicates that the accused is 24 years old, the sixth born in the family. He has a father and 5 siblings, but his mother is deceased. He is a first offender, and the probation report indicates that he has not demonstrated any criminal tendencies prior to the commission of this offence.
4. Section 204 of the Penal Code provides that the penalty on a conviction for murder is death. However, in its decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu vs Republic Supreme Court Petition Nos.15 and 16 of 2015, the Supreme Court of Kenya held that the mandatory nature of the death penalty contained in section 204 of the Penal Code was unconstitutional. The Court held that the death sentence is not per se unconstitutional, but that imposing the death sentence without considering mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances violates the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 50 (2) of the Constitution.
5. The effect of this decision is that the court, where the sentence to be imposed for an offence is death, has a discretion to consider mitigating factors in determining what sentence to pass, and is not bound to impose the death penalty. The Court varied the Sentencing Policy Guidelines promulgated by the Judiciary in 2016 and provided the following guidelines with regard to mitigating factors that are applicable in a re-hearing sentence for a conviction on a murder charge:
(a) The age of the offender;
(b) Being a first offender;
(c) Whether the offender pleaded guilty;
(d) Character and record of the offender;
(e) Commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence;
(f) Remorsefulness of the offender;
(g) The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender;
(h) Any other factor that the Court considers relevant.
6. I believe that these guidelines provide appropriate criteria for the court to consider in passing sentence on a person convicted of the offence of murder
7. In this case, the accused is a young man, 24 years of age. He is a first offender, and the social inquiry report indicates that he was remorseful for his actions. However, his actions which, from the evidence before the court were entirely unprovoked, led to the death of another promising young man. While he is remorseful, his actions robbed a family of a son, a brother, a husband and a father.
8. Taking all the above factors into consideration, I hereby sentence the accused to a term of imprisonment for 25 years.
Dated Delivered and Signed at Kericho this 13th day of June, 2018.
MUMBI NGUGI
JUDGE