Case ID:160318

Dismus Ouma Omusugu v Republic [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Miscellaneous Application 89 of 2018

Parties:

Dismus Ouma Omusugu v Republic

Date Delivered:

18 Jun 2020

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Nakuru

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Rachel Biomondo Ngetich

Citation:

Dismus Ouma Omusugu v Republic [2020] eKLR

Advocates:

Rita for State

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Nakuru

Advocates:

Rita for State

History Advocates:

One party or some parties represented

Case Outcome:

Applicant released

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU

MISC.APPL NO.89 OF 2018

DISMUS OUMA OMUSUGU.....................APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

REPUBLIC..............................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. This is a ruling on application for resentencing. The applicant had been charged and convicted off the offence of

Robbery with Violence Contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code.

He was sentenced to death. The Applicant has exhausted his right of appeal by filing appeal in both the High Court and Court of Appeal.

2. The applicant relied on the case of

Francis Karioko Muruatetu Vs Republic [2017] eKLR

to argue that the mandatory death sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is excessive and harsh and sought an appropriate sentence.

3. The applicant orally submitted that he has served sentence for 20 years now and has reformed. He stated that he has trained as a footballer and has obtained a certificate as a trainer. He prayed that he be given an opportunity to go back to the community.

4. In response, the state counsel urged the Court to consider aggravating circumstances and the fact that the applicant used dangerous weapons; pangas and rungus while committing the offence.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

5. I have considered the application herein. I do agree with the applicant that in view of decision in the case of

Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR

he deserves resentencing as the trial court at the time he was convicted imposed the mandatory death sentence as was provided by statute. The sentence was later commuted to life sentence. The applicant now prays for reduction of the sentence. He has now served 20 years’ imprisonment. He states that he has trained as a footballer and will benefit the community by being a football trainer.

6. Whereas I do agree that the offence committed was serious and the applicant deserved deterrent sentence, the 20-year period the applicant has served has given him an opportunity to reflect his life and make a resolve to reform and be of benefit to the society.

7. In my view, the applicant deserves an opportunity to rejoin the community and contribute in national development out of prison.

8.

FINAL ORDER

1. The applicant’s sentence is reduced to sentence already served.

2. Applicant to be released forthwith.

Ruling dated, signed and delivered via zoom at Nakuru This 18

th

day of June, 2020

......................................

RACHEL NGETICH

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Schola - Court Assistant

Applicant in person present

Rita for State