[2021] KEHC 2066 (KLR)
The court held that the Supreme Court's clarification in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) [2021] limited the application of the 2017 Muruatetu decision to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code. Since the petitioner was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2066 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Yassin Chogo Juma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 22 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
- Outcome
- petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Robbery With Violence, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Yassin Chogo Juma
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Competence of Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR on mandatory sentences apply to robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code?
- 2 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the petitioner.s sentence for robbery with violence based on the Muruatetu decision?
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Supreme Court's clarification in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) [2021] limited the application of the 2017 Muruatetu decision to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code. Since the petitioner was convicted of robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code, the Muruatetu decision did not apply to his case. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed on the petitioner for robbery with violence. The petition was therefore incompetent and was struck out.
Court Disposition
petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The petition is struck out as incompetent.
- The file shall be closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 22 OF 2019
YASSIN CHOGO JUMA...........PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...............................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter was placed before me for the purpose of giving directions, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ), with respect to mandatory sentences, where it was clarified that the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), had arisen from proceedings relating to murder, under section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, and the position stated in the said decision was intended to apply only to mandatory sentences with respect to murder cases.
2. The petition herein, undated, but filed herein on 5th March 2019, principally rides on the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), for the petitioner seeks review of his sentence, where he had been convicted of robbery with violence, under section 296(2) of the Penal Code, in Vihiga PMCCRC No. 510 of 2010, and was sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the President of the Republic of Kenya. He filed appeal in Kakamega HCCRA No. 205 of 2012 and Kisumu CACRA No. 75 of 2014, both of which were dismissed by the appellate courts.
3. The offence, the subject of the instant proceedings, is not murder, but robbery with violence, as defined in section 296(2) of the Penal Code, the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), therefore, does not apply to it. As a consequence, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence that was imposed by the trial court, based on the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ). Since there is no jurisdiction on my part to entertain the petition, I shall strike it out, for it is incompetent. The said file shall be closed.
4. The Deputy Registrar to cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the petitioner and the office of the Director of Public Prosecution.
PREPARED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE