[2019] KEHC 12170 (KLR)
The court held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the mandatory death sentence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional. The court is therefore required to resentence the Petitioner. In considering the appropriate sentence, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 12170 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Titus Mulwa Muia; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 134 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- Death sentence set aside; Petitioner resentenced to 38 years' imprisonment from date of arrest.
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Death Penalty, Resentencing, Fundamental Rights, Robbery With Violence
- 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
Titus Mulwa Muia
Petitioner
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional.
- 2 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 3 What is the appropriate sentence for the Petitioner given the circumstances and time already served.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the mandatory death sentence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional. The court is therefore required to resentence the Petitioner. In considering the appropriate sentence, the court took into account the seriousness of the offence, the fact that a life was lost, the Petitioner's age, and the 32 years already served in custody. Balancing these factors, the court set aside the death sentence and imposed a custodial sentence of 38 years from the date of arrest, considering both the need for deterrence and the Petitioner's mitigation.
Court Disposition
Death sentence set aside; Petitioner resentenced to 38 years' imprisonment from date of arrest.
Orders
- The death sentence imposed upon the Petitioner is set aside.
- The Petitioner is sentenced to thirty-eight (38) years' imprisonment from the date of arrest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. 134 OF 2018
TITUS MULWA MUIA …………………….…………………...………… PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS…....……….......……RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner herein was charged and convicted with Robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code in Nairobi Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 4329 of 1989 and sentenced to death. The Petitioner subsequently lodged a first appeal before the High Court and a second appeal in the Court of Appeal which were both dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14th August, 1989 the house of Norman Whelan in Hardy Estate, Nairobi was raided between 9. 00 a.m. and 3. 00 p.m. and several items stolen. In the course of the robbery his servant Charles Mukanzi Bukha was strangled to death. The Petitioner and two others were then charged in court.
3. The Petitioner now claims that the sentencing to death by the trial court as well as the appellate courts was an infringement of his fundamental rights. The Petitioner avers that the said courts interpreted the provisions of Section 296(2) of the Penal Code to mean that death sentence was the only sentence available to the Petitioner and that the said courts held the view that the death sentence under the said provisions was mandatory and no other sentence was tenable.
Hearing and Submissions
4. The matter came up for hearing on 7th October, 2019.
5. It was the Petitioner’s submissions that the offence was as a result of domestic issues. That he is now 63 Years old having spent 32 years in custody. The Petitioner prayed to be jailed for the 32 years he has served in jail.
6. The Respondent (DPP) through its Counsel Mr. Fedha submitted that as a result of the offence someone’s life was lost and prayed that the Petitioner be convicted to 50 years to serve as adequate warning to such offenders.
The Determination
7. On the issue of sentence, the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another -vs- Republic [2017] eKLRdeclared the mandatory nature of the death sentence as provided for under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code to be unconstitutional. To that extent this court only has to resentence the Petitioner.
8. I have perused the Petitioner’s Progress Report as annexed to his written submissions. I have also considered Petitioner’s mitigation. It is important to note that a result of the trial courts sentencing the Petitioner has already served 32 years in custody. In the circumstances, I do hereby set aside the death sentence imposed upon the Petitioner.
9. The offence which for which the Petitioner was convicted is serious. To serve as a warning the Petitioner is hereby jailed to a term of Thirty Eight (38) years from the date of arrest.
Right of appeal in 14 days.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in Mombasa this 18th day of December, 2019.
E. K. O. OGOLA
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
Ms. Mutua for DPP
Petitioner in person
Mr. Kaunda Court Assistant