[2019] KEHC 146 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 146 (KLR)

The court held that, following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence imposed on the applicant was unconstitutional to the extent that it denied the applicant an opportunity to mitigate before sentencing. The court found that the applicant should be allowed to present mitigation, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 146 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Robert Obara Lango; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 November 2019
Case Number
Criminal Petition 18 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Application for Resentencing Following Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Sentence
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Resentencing, Mandatory Death Sentence, Robbery With Violence, Mitigation Rights
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Resentencing Mandatory Death Sentence Robbery With Violence Mitigation Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Obara Lango

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Ruling on Application for Resentencing Following Supreme Court Decision on Mandatory Death Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence imposed on the applicant should be reviewed or substituted for a lesser sentence in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Kariako Muruatetu & Another v Republic (2017) eKLR.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be afforded an opportunity to mitigate before sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence imposed on the applicant was unconstitutional to the extent that it denied the applicant an opportunity to mitigate before sentencing. The court found that the applicant should be allowed to present mitigation, and that the original sentence should be reviewed in light of the applicant's circumstances, the non-aggravated nature of the offence, and the minimal value of the stolen items. The application for resentencing was therefore allowed, and the applicant was granted the opportunity to mitigate before the court determines the appropriate sentence.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant shall be accorded the opportunity to present mitigation before resentencing by this court.
  • The court will determine whether to reaffirm the death sentence or substitute it for a lesser sentence after hearing mitigation.