[2019] KEHC 6765 (KLR)
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu, the death penalty is not mandatory for murder and that sentencing should be individualized. In this case, despite the accused being a first offender and showing remorse, the use of a machete to kill his wife, the mother of his two...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 6765 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Kiplangat Ruto
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 13 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentencing
- Outcome
- accused sentenced to 22 years imprisonment
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Death Penalty Discretion, Mitigating Factors, Probation Recommendation
- 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
Peter Kiplangat Ruto
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for murder should be imposed in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the circumstances of the case justify a lesser sentence than death.
- 3 Whether probation is appropriate given the facts and the victim's family's position.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu, the death penalty is not mandatory for murder and that sentencing should be individualized. In this case, despite the accused being a first offender and showing remorse, the use of a machete to kill his wife, the mother of his two children, constituted a grave and violent act. The court found that a probation sentence was inappropriate due to the severity of the offence and the nature of the weapon and force used. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to impose a custodial sentence of 22 years imprisonment, considering both the mitigating factors and the aggravating circumstances.
Court Disposition
accused sentenced to 22 years imprisonment
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to serve 22 years imprisonment.
- Right of appeal explained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CRIMINAL CASE NO.13 OF 2017
REPUBLIC.................................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
PETER KIPLANGAT RUTO.............ACCUSED
SENTENCE
1. The accused has been convicted of murder, whose statutory sentence is death. However, following the decision of the Supreme court, in Francis Muruatetu & Ano. -vs- Republic – Petition 15 and 16 of 2015, the death penalty though legal, was declared to be the maximum sentence. Courts have thus a discretion to mete out appropriate sentences under the specific circumstances of each case.
2. The accused is a first offender as the prosecution does not have any previous conviction. The defence counsel has asked for a lenient sentence as the accused is remorseful and is a father of two children who need his care and attention.
3. A pre-sentence report prepared by the Probation Officer, Kericho, and filed on 8th May 2019 stated that the accused is aged 34 years and the deceased was his wife. According to the report, the accused had a standing strained relationship with the deceased because she was a drunkard and engaged in extra marital relationships, and that on the material day the deceased was escorted home by a man. The Probation Officer thus recommended a probation sentence, though the victim’s family was not willing for reconciliation.
4. In my view, a probation sentence is not appropriate in this case where a machete was used to shorten a precious life, and the mother of the two young children of the accused. The force and weapon used were meant to cause death through severe pain.
5. I sentence the accused to serve 22 years imprisonment. Right of appeal explained.
Dated at Kericho this 13th June 2019.
GEORGE DULU
JUDGE