[2019] KEHC 1601 (KLR)
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR, which declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional, applies to robbery with violence cases. The court found that the applicant, a first-time offender who expressed remorse, was entitled to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1601 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Kinoti; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 17 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- Death sentence set aside; substituted with twenty years imprisonment from 1st January 2000.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Mandatory Sentencing, Resentencing Principles, Death Penalty, Mitigation, Supreme Court Guidelines
- 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
Stephen Kinoti
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to resentencing based on the principles set out by the Supreme Court.
- 3 What is the appropriate sentence for the applicant considering the circumstances of the offence and mitigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR, which declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional, applies to robbery with violence cases. The court found that the applicant, a first-time offender who expressed remorse, was entitled to resentencing. The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the applicant's mitigation, and the time spent in pre-custody. Consequently, the court set aside the death sentence and substituted it with a term of twenty years imprisonment, effective from 1st January 2000.
Court Disposition
Death sentence set aside; substituted with twenty years imprisonment from 1st January 2000.
Orders
- The death sentence imposed on the applicant is set aside.
- The applicant is sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment from 1st January 2000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2018
STEPHEN KINOTI..................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON RE-SENTENSING
1. The Petitioner, Stephen Kinoti, was charged before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Meru with robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296(2) of the Penal Code.
2. It was alleged that on 17/2/1998 at Kaguma Trading Centre, Gatimbi Location, Meru Central District jointly with others not before the court while armed with an offensive weapon namely a knife, he robbed Simon Kirema of cash Kshs. 8,000/- and at the time of such robbery wounded him.
3. At the trial, the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to death. Being aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner appealed to this court. In the judgment (Juma & Tuiyot JJ) dated 14/2/2002 the conviction and sentence were upheld. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was likewise dismissed on 19/5/2006.
4. He moved this court to review his sentence on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Francis Muruatetu and Others vs Republic [2017] eKLR.
5. In that case, the Supreme Court of Kenya held that the mandatory nature of the death sentence under Section 204 of the Penal Code was unconstitutional as it denied the Court its discretion in sentencing. The Court proceeded to set out the criteria or the principles that should guide a Court in sentencing. Some of the considerations are age of the offender, being a first offender, whether the offender pleaded guilty, the character and record of the offender, commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence, remorsefulness of the offender, the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender and any other factor that the Court considers relevant.
6. Though the Supreme Court was dealing with the offence of murder, the view I take is that the same principle applies in other cases where the law provides for a mandatory death sentence including case of robbery with violence. See the Court of Appeal decision in William Okungu Kittiny vs. Republic [2018] eKLR.
7. I have considered the foregoing and the circumstances under which the offence was committed. The petitioner was in the company of others when they robbed Simon Kirema of Kshs. 8,000/- and stabbed the victim several times on the head, stomach, neck, back and hand then proceeded to ransack his house and before leaving him for dead.
8. The petitioner a first time offender and expressed remorse for what he has done during mitigation. The state did not object to the re-sentencing. Moreover, I have taken into account the time spent in pre-custody under the provision of Section 333(2) of the Criminal procedure Code CAP 75 of the Laws of Kenya.
9. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the death sentence and substitute therefor with a sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment from 1st January 2000.
DATED and DELIVERED at Meru this 11th day of December, 2019.
A. MABEYA
JUDGE