[2023] KEHC 23349 (KLR)
The court held that, although the statutory penalty for murder is death, the Supreme Court's decision in the Muruatetu case rendered mandatory death sentences unconstitutional. The trial court must therefore exercise discretion, considering the circumstances of the offence, the convict's antecedents, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23349 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Boniface Odhiambo; Defendant: Musa Olwete; Defendant: Evans Ochieng Mlefu; Defendant: Robert Muruai Kwesi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E018 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentencing Ruling After Conviction for Murder
- Outcome
- convicted and sentenced
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Mandatory Sentences, Pre Sentence Reports, Mitigation, Penal Code Section 204, Supreme Court Guidance
- 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
Boniface Odhiambo
Defendant
Musa Olwete
Defendant
Evans Ochieng Mlefu
Defendant
Robert Muruai Kwesi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing Ruling After Conviction for Murder
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for murder should be imposed in light of the Supreme Court decision declaring such sentences unconstitutional.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the 1st accused, considering the circumstances of the offence, the convict's antecedents, and the pre-sentence report.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, although the statutory penalty for murder is death, the Supreme Court's decision in the Muruatetu case rendered mandatory death sentences unconstitutional. The trial court must therefore exercise discretion, considering the circumstances of the offence, the convict's antecedents, and the pre-sentence report. In this case, the 1st accused was convicted of a premeditated murder involving the brutal killing of the victim in her own home, accompanied by robbery and evidence of a plot. The pre-sentence report was unfavorable, indicating lack of remorse, a criminal record, prior escape from custody, and negative community perception. The court found that a non-custodial...
Court Disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- The 1st accused is sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment, effective from July 28, 2023.
- There is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Republic v Odhiambo & 3 others (Criminal Case E018 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 23349 (KLR) (13 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23349 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Busia
Criminal Case E018 of 2021
WM Musyoka, J
October 13, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Boniface Odhiambo
1st Accused
Musa Olwete
2nd Accused
Evans Ochieng Mlefu
3rd Accused
Robert Muruai Kwesi
4th Accused
Ruling
1. The 1st accused person was convicted on July 17, 2023, of the murder of Anne Achieng Mung’ayo, on September 12, 2021. He is now a convict. I am called upon to sentence him for that offence that he was found guilty of committing. I will consider the penalties available in law for such offences, the circumstances of the commission of the offence, the feelings of the family of the victim and the antecedents of the accused person.
2. The penalty prescribed by the law for murder is mandatory death. That is what is in the Kenyan statutes. However, the Supreme Court recently ruled that mandatory sentences were unconstitutional, and directed that trial courts ought to be given room to consider the matters that I have set out in paragraph 1 above, to assess whether to award the death penalty prescribed or some other lesser sentence.
3. Murder is where death is caused intentionally. Then there is manslaughter, where death is caused unintentionally or by accident or mistake. As stated above, the penalty for murder, according to section 204 of the Penal Code, cap 63, Laws of Kenya, is death; while that for manslaughter is a maximum of life imprisonment, by virtue of section 205 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court decision has, no doubt, thrown everything into disarray. There is no clarity at all, when it comes to assessing the appropriate sentence to impose for both manslaughter and murder. It is an open field and, in terms of sentence, it would now appear that there is no difference between murder and manslaughter. The line has been blurred.
4. I called for a pre-sentence report. The probation office has compiled the report, dated October 2, 2023, which was filed herein on even date. It is not favourable. The 1st accused is not remorseful, according to that report, he still denies his involvement in the murder. He has a criminal record. His mother mentions that he does not engage in any gainful work, but he often has lots of money, whose source is unexplained. The community does not trust him. He had once escaped from prison, and was convicted and sentenced for it. He has ties in Uganda, where his live-in partner lives, and it was in Uganda that he was arrested after the prison-break.
5. The 1st accused was convicted of murder, a pre-meditated killing. The neck of the victim was sliced open. There was a robbery, where her property was stolen. There were suggestions of a plot to kill her. This is about the killing of a human being. Human life is sacrosanct, and ought not to be terminated unlawfully, like happened in this case. Human society is very protective of its own. Senseless killing, such as in this case, should be dealt with the firmness it deserves, to send out a message about the importance to uphold sanctity of human life. A person who kills intentionally should pay back for his wrongdoing. A non-custodial sentence would not suffice, more so where the convict has a history of escaping from lawful custody, and seeking refuge in a foreign country, where his estranged live-in partner resides.
6. I have noted the circumstances of the commission of the offence, the statements made by the advocate for the convict in mitigation, and the pre-sentence report. I have also noted the antecedents of the convict, especially the fact of his previous criminal record, his flight from lawful custody, and sanctuary in a foreign country. I am also alive to the fact that the evidence against the 1st accused was circumstantial. I am also alive to the fact that the victim was killed in the safety of her own home. I have taken all these into account, balancing them against the fact that a human being lost her life.
7. In the circumstances, I shall sentence the convict to serve a custodial sentence, of 40 years’ imprisonment, effective from the date of conviction on July 28, 2023. There is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days. Orders accordingly.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT BUSIA THIS 13THDAY OF OCTOBER 2023WM MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant.AppearancesMs. Chepkonga, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Republic.Mr. Were, instructed by Gabriel Fwaya, Advocate for the accused/convict.