[2020] KEHC 4192 (KLR)
The court held that the mandatory nature of the life sentence for robbery with violence, as imposed by statute, was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated positive conduct, remorse, and a willingness to reform, and that these...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 4192 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: SMM; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 123 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Resentencing Application After Exhaustion of Appeals
- Outcome
- sentence reduced
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Robbery With Violence, Mandatory Sentencing, Mitigating Factors
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SMM
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Resentencing Application After Exhaustion of Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory life sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a reduction of sentence based on mitigating factors and period served.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the mandatory nature of the life sentence for robbery with violence, as imposed by statute, was unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated positive conduct, remorse, and a willingness to reform, and that these mitigating factors warranted a reduction of sentence. The court exercised its discretion to impose a determinate sentence, reducing the applicant's sentence to 20 years' imprisonment, to run from the date of the original sentence.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced
Orders
- Sentence is reduced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- The sentence to run from the time the applicant was sentenced in the lower court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
MISC.APPL NO.123 OF 2018
SMM...........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is a ruling on application for resentencing. The applicant had been charged and convicted of the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to death on 1st February 2007. He has exhausted his right of appeal by filing appeal in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in the year 2009. He has served 13 years’ imprisonment.
2. The applicant relied on the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu Vs Republic [2017] eKLR to argue that the mandatory life sentence imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court is excessive and harsh and sought an appropriate sentence.
3. The applicant orally submitted that he has served as a footballer in prison and he has been a coach. He stated that he will go and continue playing football and also do farming. He said he was 17 years old when he was arrested; he was not married and he is now 31 years old. He prayed that he be given an opportunity to go back to the community.
4. I called for probation officers report before the state counsel responded.
5. In response Ms. Rita Rotich for the state opposed the application and urged Court to consider aggravating circumstances. She submitted that crude weapons which included pangas, rungus and axes were used to commit the robbery and the victims were injured.
6. In response the applicant urged Court to consider the period he has served.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
7. The applicant herein was sentenced to death which was later commuted to life imprisonment. The sentence imposed was the mandatory sentence provided by statute. Mandatory nature of sentences was however declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu Vs Republic [2017] eKLR. The Supreme Court stated that mandatory nature of sentences takes away the discretion of the trial Court to determine sentence to impose which should be determined on the basis of circumstances and mitigating factors advanced in a particular case. The Supreme Court found that the taking away of discretion of the Court renders the mitigating factors superfluous.
8. I note that the applicant has taken the period he has served prison positively and learnt skills to improve himself for his benefit, family and community. This is evidence of resolve to reform and be of benefit to the society. He also appears remorseful and willing to be a law abiding citizen.
9. In view of the above, I find that the applicant deserves reduction of sentence. I therefore reduce the applicant’s sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment.
10. FINAL ORDERS
1. Sentence is reduced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
2. The sentence to run from the time the applicant was sentenced in the lower court.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered via zoom at Nakuru This 21st day of July, 2020
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Jeniffer - Court Assistant
Applicant in person present
Rita for State