[2025] KEHC 7357 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7357 (KLR)

The court found that the imposition of an indeterminate life sentence without the possibility of review or release is unconstitutional, as it amounts to inhuman and degrading punishment and violates the right to equality and dignity under Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution. The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Julius Kitsao Manyeso, which held that such sentences are discriminatory and contrary to international law principles. The court further held that, following Ayako v Republic, life imprisonment in Kenya should be interpreted as a term of thirty years. The court also found that Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and requires the period spent...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7357 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Marius Cheruiyot Rono; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Petition E017 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Resentencing Application
Outcome
Petition allowed. Life sentence set aside and substituted with thirty years’ imprisonment from date of arraignment, with time spent in custody to be considered.
Judges
E Ominde
Legal Topics
Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Principles, Constitutional Rights of Accused, Mitigation and Remission, Review of Life Sentences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Robbery With Violence Sentencing Principles Constitutional Rights of Accused Mitigation and Remission Review of Life Sentences

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marius Cheruiyot Rono

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Petition / Ruling on Resentencing Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indeterminate life sentence imposed on the petitioner is unconstitutional and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefit from Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding time spent in custody.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence should be substituted with a definite term of imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the imposition of an indeterminate life sentence without the possibility of review or release is unconstitutional, as it amounts to inhuman and degrading punishment and violates the right to equality and dignity under Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution. The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Julius Kitsao Manyeso, which held that such sentences are discriminatory and contrary to international law principles. The court further held that, following Ayako v Republic, life imprisonment in Kenya should be interpreted as a term of thirty years. The court also found that Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and requires the period spent...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed. Life sentence set aside and substituted with thirty years’ imprisonment from date of arraignment, with time spent in custody to be considered.

Orders

  • The life sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
  • The petitioner is sentenced to thirty (30) years’ imprisonment.