[2020] KEHC 8636 (KLR)
The court found that the mandatory life sentence imposed on the petitioner for defilement was unconstitutional, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu, which held that mandatory sentences violate the right to judicial discretion and mitigation. The court considered the seriousness of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8636 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Oloo Odhiambo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 62 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment on Resentencing After Dismissal of Appeals
- Outcome
- petition for resentencing allowed; life sentence set aside and substituted with fifty years imprisonment from date of original sentencing
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Mandatory Sentences, Sexual Offences, Judicial Discretion
- 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 Oloo Odhiambo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment on Resentencing After Dismissal of Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory life sentence for defilement is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing based on the circumstances of the offence and mitigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the mandatory life sentence imposed on the petitioner for defilement was unconstitutional, following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu, which held that mandatory sentences violate the right to judicial discretion and mitigation. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the age of the victim, the petitioner's status as a repeat offender, and his mitigation, including claims of reformation and vocational training. Balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the life sentence and substitute it with a determinate prison term of fifty years, to be calculated from the...
Court Disposition
petition for resentencing allowed; life sentence set aside and substituted with fifty years imprisonment from date of original sentencing
Orders
- The life imprisonment sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
- The petitioner is sentenced to fifty years imprisonment, to be calculated from the date of sentencing in the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 62 OF 2019
STEPHEN OLOO ODHIAMBO ……………………………… PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………….………… RESPONDENT
(Being a Constitutional Petition for resentencing against sentence in Bondo Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal No. 1748 of 2009; before and High Court Kisumu CRA NO. 31 of 2011 and Court of Appeal No. 50 of 2014)
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner Stephen Oloo Odhiambo Petitions this Court for resentencing. He was convicted and sentenced to serve life imprisonment vide Bondo Senior Resident Magistrate’s Criminal Case [S.O.] No. 1748/2009 on 9. 2.2011 for the offence of Defilement of a child aged 4 years.
2. He admitted that he had previously at the Principal Magistrate’s Court Siaya been convicted and sentenced to serve two years imprisonment for the offence of attempted rape.
3. Following his conviction for defilement, he appealed to the High Court at Kisumu vide Kisumu HCCRA 31/2011 which appeal was dismissed.
4. He then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal at Kisumu vide Kenya Criminal Appeal 50 of 2014 which appeal was also dismissed.
5. Having exhausted all appeal channels, the Petitioner now Petitions this Court for resentencing on the strength of the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu and Another and Republic Petition Nos. 15 and 16 of 2015 [2017] eKLRwhich set a precedent that mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional in so far as it deprives the Court of Judicial discretion to mete out appropriate sentence having regard to the circumstances of each case and that it also deprives the convict the opportunity to mitigate before sentencing.
6. The above decision has been applied mutatis Mutandis in Sexual Offences which carry mandatory minimum sentences upon conviction. In Jared Injiri Koita v Republic [2019] eKLRthe Court of Appeal applied the principles espoused in theFrancis Karioko Muruatetu V. Republic (supra) Petition and Interfered with Mandatory Minimum sentence meted out on a Sexual Offence Convict.
7. The Petitioner in this Petition says that he is aged 28 years old. He submits that he used to be idle that is why he committed the Offences but that now he has reformed and that he has learnt carpentry and joinery in prison.
8. He has shown to the Court a certificate to that effect issued in December 2017.
9. The Prosecution Counsel Mr. Okachi submitted that there is no evidence that the Petitioner has reformed or that he will not be idle. That the offence of defilement is serious and traumatizing to the victim who was only 4 years old hence the Court should impose a long term sentence.
10. I have considered the Petition and arguments for and against. I have considered the fresh mitigation by the Petitioner and the circumstances under which the offences was committed as per the proceedings and judgment of the trial Court supplied to this court, which verdict was upheld all the way to the Court of Appeal. I have also taken into account the age of the Petitioner and the victim of the offence of defilement.
11. The Petitioner was sentenced to serve mandatory life imprisonment which is no longer fashionable in legal circles despite the seriousness of the offence.
12. The purpose of sentencing is to give the offender a chance to be rehabilitated and to reform an to punish him for his wrongdoing to the victim. In my view, idleness should never be an excuse for one to defile a child or to engage in heinous crimes which attract heavy penalties. Children need acre and protection not to be preyed on by sex pets.
13. For all the above reason, I exercise discretion and allow the Petition for resentencing and set aside the life imprisonment meted out on the Petitioner and substitute it with a prison term of fifty years to be calculated from the date of sentencing in the trial Court as the Petitioner is a repeat offender.
14. Orders accordingly.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Siaya this 22nd Day of January 2020
R. E. ABURILI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
The Petitioner in person
Mr. Okachi SPPC for the Respondent
CA: Brenda and Modestar