[2023] KEHC 25489 (KLR)
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, which declared the mandatory death sentence for murder unconstitutional, is not applicable to offences under the Sexual Offences Act, such as defilement. The Supreme Court's guidelines dated 6 July 2021 expressly limited the application of Muruatetu to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 25489 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bonface Ngeywo Sampton; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 78 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- DK Kemei
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing Applications, Scope of Muruatetu, Sexual Offences Act, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Bonface Ngeywo Sampton
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a resentencing application for a conviction under the Sexual Offences Act based on the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu applies to offences other than murder, specifically defilement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, which declared the mandatory death sentence for murder unconstitutional, is not applicable to offences under the Sexual Offences Act, such as defilement. The Supreme Court's guidelines dated 6 July 2021 expressly limited the application of Muruatetu to murder cases only. Since the petitioner's conviction and sentence arose from a defilement charge, his application for resentencing based on Muruatetu was without merit. Additionally, the court agreed with the respondent that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition for resentencing is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Sampton v Republic (Criminal Petition 78 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 25489 (KLR) (17 November 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 25489 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Bungoma
Criminal Petition 78 of 2019
DK Kemei, J
November 17, 2023
Between
Bonface Ngeywo Sampton
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Petitioner herein Boniface Ngeywo Sampton filed an application on 1. 8.19 seeking a re-sentencing in respect of Sirisia Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 130 of 2008. His gravamen is that he was convicted and sentenced to serve thirty (30) years’ imprisonment by the trial court and that his appeal to the High Court vide Bungoma HCRA No. 11 of 2010 was dismissed and that the sentence was enhanced to life imprisonment. He averred that his appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2010 was dismissed. He now seeks this court to review the sentence on the grounds that he has since reformed while in prison. The Applicant relied on his written submissions filed on 27. 10. 2023.
2. Miss Mwaniki for the Respondent opposed the application. She submitted that this court is now functus officio and has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
3. I have given due consideration to the application and the submission presented. It is not in dispute that the spirited craze by litigants to file for re -sentencing stemming from the decision of the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another -vs- Republic ( 2017) eKLR , which declared the imposition of the mandatory death sentences to be unconstitutional . Pursuant to the sale decision, several litigants filed applications for resentencing before several courts. However, the Supreme Court being alarmed by the floodgate of those cases in several courts issued guidelines and directions dated 6. 7.2021 wherein it held that the decisional law in Muruatetu case (Supra) was not an authority to declare all mandatory and minimum sentences unconstitutional and further went a head to point out that its application was limited to murder cases falling within its scope.It is noted that the petitioner herein had been convicted and sentenced for an offence of defilement under the Sexual Offences Act which is completely out of the scope contemplated under the Supreme Courts Guidelines dated 6. 7.2021. That being the position, I am inclined to agree with the submissions by counsel for the Respondent that the request by the Petitioner for resentencing on the basis of Muruatetu Case (Supra) is without merit.In any case, the authorities relied upon by the Petitioner had been decided upon prior to the guidelines by the Supreme Court. The said Guidelines cleared any issues in controversy as regards the scope of the application of the decisional law in Muruatetu Case.
4. In the result, it is my finding that the petition is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023D KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of:-Bonface Ngeywo PetitionerMiss Mwaniki for Respondent