[2021] KEHC 7215 (KLR)
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional and that sentencing discretion must be exercised. Considering the mitigating factors, including the petitioner's remorse, time already served, and lack of actual...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7215 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Victor Ogesa Samunyu; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 173 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Resentencing Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- death sentence substituted with 22 years imprisonment from date of arrest
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Robbery With Violence, Mandatory Sentences, Mitigation and Aggravation, Supreme Court Guidance
- 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
Victor Ogesa Samunyu
Appellant
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Resentencing Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner considering the circumstances of the offence and time already served.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is unconstitutional and that sentencing discretion must be exercised. Considering the mitigating factors, including the petitioner's remorse, time already served, and lack of actual violence inflicted on the victims, as well as aggravating factors such as the spate of robberies committed on the same night, the court determined that the death penalty was not warranted. Instead, a custodial sentence of 22 years from the date of arrest was appropriate to reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.
Court Disposition
death sentence substituted with 22 years imprisonment from date of arrest
Orders
- The death sentence is set aside.
- The petitioner is sentenced to serve a jail term of twenty two (22) years from the date of arrest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
PETITION NO. 173 OF 2019
VICTOR OGESA SAMUNYU........................................................PETITIONER
AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION..............................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT ON RESENTENCING
1. The Petitioner was convicted on four counts of the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with 296(2) of the Penal Code and sentenced to death in Mombasa Cr. Case No. 2062 of 2008. He appealed in Mombasa HCCRA No. 96 of 2010 and his Appeal was dismissed and sentence upheld.
2. The Petitioner has now petitioned this Court for review of sentence in view of the Supreme Court declaration in Francis Kariokor Muruatetu & Another v Republic SCK Pet. No. 15 of 2015 [2017] eKLRin which the apex court found the mandatory nature of the death sentence to be unconstitutional.
Brief Circumstance of the offence
3. The particulars are that on the night of 23/6/2008, at Kiembeni hillside estate within Bamburi village in Mombasa, the Petitioner jointly with others not before Court, while armed with dangerous weapons namely pistols, robbed Obuya Otieno Ritzauand 3 other victims of their mobile phones, bracelets, watches, household items and ATM cards, and immediately before or immediately after the robbery threatened to use actual violence to the said victims.
4. The Petitioner submitted he has been in jail for the last 13 years, and in those years spent in jail, he is reformed and he is remorseful and regrets his actions. The Petitioner further submitted that he has paid his debt to the society, and promises not to indulge himself in any Criminal activities in future.
5. Ms. Anyumba for the prosecution submitted that taking into account the circumstances of the case, and the fact that the Petitioner and his accomplices engaged in a spate of robberies, a deterrent sentence of 20 years including time served in prison would be appropriate.
6. I have considered the petition, the submissions by the Petitioner and the D.P.P. Sentencing is a discretion of the trial court. In Ambani v Republic [1990] KLR, Bosire J. (as he then was) stated that a sentence imposed on an accused person must be commensurate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender and that the Court should look at the facts and the circumstances of the case in its entirety before settling for any given sentence.
7. Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a sentencing court to take into account the period spent in custody awaiting trial.
8. I have now considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the case. In my view, the nature of this robberies do not call for invocation of the death penalty. Further, it is noteworthy that no actual violence was meted on the Petitioner’s victims during the said robberies.
9. I have also considered the sentences imposed in some other cases where convicts of robbery with violence were re-sentenced after the Supreme Court decision in the Muruatetu case. In Wycliffe Wangugi Mafura v Republic Eldoret Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2016 [2018] the Court of Appeal imposed a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment where the appellant was involved in robbing an Mpesa shop agent with the use of firearm but no actual injuries were inflicted on the victim. However, the Petitioner was on the same night involved in a spate of robberies. He is a person most likely to continue with his crime and he needs to be given a stiff sentence which makes him appreciate his crimes.
10. In conclusion, and in consideration of the fact that the victim was injured and lucky to get away with his life, this Court substitutes the death sentence herein, and hereby sentences the Petitioner to serve a jail term of twenty two (22) years from the date of arrest.
That is the Judgment of the court.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021.
E. K. O. OGOLA
JUDGE
Judgment delivered via MS Teams in the presence of:
Petitioner in person
Ms. Wanjohi for DPP
Ms. Peris Court Assistant