[2020] KEHC 7513 (KLR)
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional and that sentencing courts must consider both mitigating and aggravating factors. In this case, the petitioner was convicted of a particularly heinous murder involving kidnapping,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7513 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Yasin Kiptoo Kimutai; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 57 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application
- Outcome
- petition for resentencing allowed; death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 25 years' imprisonment from 8/9/2016.
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Resentencing Guidelines, Murder Offence, Mitigating Factors, Aggravating Factors
- 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
Yasin Kiptoo Kimutai
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Resentencing Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the petitioner considering the circumstances of the offence and the mitigating/aggravating factors.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional and that sentencing courts must consider both mitigating and aggravating factors. In this case, the petitioner was convicted of a particularly heinous murder involving kidnapping, ransom demands, and the eventual killing and burial of the victim. The court considered the need for deterrence given the increasing prevalence of such crimes, as well as the petitioner's time spent in custody (almost 10 years). Balancing these factors, and guided by comparable sentences in similar cases post-Muruatetu, the court found that a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment,...
Court Disposition
petition for resentencing allowed; death sentence set aside; petitioner resentenced to 25 years' imprisonment from 8/9/2016.
Orders
- The petitioner is resentenced to twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment commencing from 8/9/2016.
- The period spent in custody prior to sentencing shall be taken into account.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 57 OF 2018
YASIN KIPTOO KIMUTAI.......PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...............................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Petitioner herein has filed this petition requesting this court to consider resentencing him pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another =Vs= Republic [2017] eKLRwhere the court held that:
“(69) consequently, we find that section 204 of the Penal Code is inconsistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that it provides for the mandatory death sentence for murder.”
2. The petitioner was charged, convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of murder contrary to section 202as read withsection 203of thePenal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya) at a trial before the High Court at Kitale in Criminal Case No. 58of2010on 8/9/2016. He appealed against the conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal in Eldoret Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2013 which appeal was dismissed.
3. The Petitioner now wishes to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu (Supra) for a re- sentencing.
4. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court in the Muruatetu case, considered that in re-sentencing in a case of murder, the following mitigating factors would be applicable as a guide namely:-
(a) age of the offender
(b) being a first offender
(c) whether the offender pleaded guilty
(d) character and record of the offender
(e) Commission of the offence in relation to gender-based violence.
(f) remorsefulness of the offender
(g) the possibility of reform and social-re adaptation of the offender
(h) any other factor that the court considers relevant.
5. Under the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 (“the Guidelines”) published by the Kenya Judiciary state (at para. 4. 1), the courts are urged to consider that the sentence imposed must meet the following objectives;
Retribution; To punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.
Deterrence; To deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as discourage other people from committing similar offences.
Rehabilitation: To enable the offender reform from his criminal disposition and become a law abiding person.
Restorative justice: To address the needs arising from criminal conduct such as loss and damages.
Community protection: To protect the community by incapacitating the offender.
Denunciation: To communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.
6. In determining this petition, it is imperative to look at the sentences which have been imposed by other Courts following the decision in the Muruatetu case in offences of this nature. The Court of Appeal decision post the Muruatetu Case provide some guidance on the appropriate sentence. In Jonathan Lemiso Ole Keni v Republic NRB Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2016 (2018) eKLRwhere the petitioner shot a person without any provocation, the court imposed a sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment. In John Ndede Ochodho alias Obago v Republic KSM CA Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2014 (2018) eKLR,the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 25 years in a case of murder where the petitioner assaulted the deceased several times causing his death.
7. From the record, I note that the petitioner kidnapped the deceased, kept demanding for a ransom from his family so as to spare his life but went ahead and murdered the deceased mercilessly before burying his body.I take judicial notice that this behavior is becoming very rampant in the society and therefore I am of the view that a sentence that will deter other like minded persons from committing a similar offence is appropriate in the circumstance. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a sentencing court to take into account the period that a convicted person has spent in custody prior to the sentence. I note that the Petitioner has been in custody, pre and post-trial for almost 10 years
8. Taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors, I have considered the entirety of the facts and therefore I hereby re-sentence the Petitioner to Twenty (25) years imprisonment commencing from 8/9/2016.
Signed, dated and Delivered at Kitale on this 3rd day of March, 2020.
________________
H.K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
3/3/2020
In the presence of:-
Ms Kagai for the Respondent
Applicant present
Court Assistant – Kirong
Ruling read in open court