Case ID:173111

Republic v Joseph Gikundi Mugambi [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 11 of 2015

Parties:

Republic v Joseph Gikundi Mugambi

Date Delivered:

24 Mar 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Garissa

Case Action:

Sentence

Judge(s):

Charles Mutungi Kariuki

Citation:

Republic v Joseph Gikundi Mugambi [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Garissa

Case Outcome:

Accused sentenced to serve 40 years’ imprisonment

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 GARISSA

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11 OF 2015

REPUBLIC..............................PROSECUTION

VERSUS

JOSEPH GIKUNDI MUGAMBI.....ACCUSED

SENTENCING ORDER

1. The accused has been convicted with offence of murder contrary to

section 203

as read with

section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya.

2. He mitigated before my Sister Judge Ali-Aroni.This was after State presented no previous records on 19/11/2020. Via his advocate the accused urges court to take into account that he is remorseful and regret death of deceased due to matrimonial issues. Accused has been in custody since May 2015.

3. However, the accused inflicted fatal cut to the deceased while the accused was totally unprovoked nor justified.

4. He never alluded to the incident in his defence but denied the killing of the deceased person. The act of killing as emerges from the evidence was brutal and the court has to deter same by a stiff sentence.

5. The 2016 J

udiciary of Kenya Sentencing Policy Guidelines

lists the objectives of sentencing at page 15, paragraph 4.1 as follows:

“Sentences are imposed to meet the following objectives:

I. Retribution: To punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.

II. Deterrence: To deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.

III. Rehabilitation: To enable the offender reform from his criminal disposition and become a law abiding person.

IV. Restorative justice: To address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages. Criminal conduct ordinarily occasions victims’, communities’ and offenders’ needs and justice demands that these are met. Further, to promote a sense of responsibility through the offender’s contribution towards meeting the victims’ needs.

V. Community protection: To protect the community by incapacitating the offender.

VI. Denunciation: To communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.”

6. In the case of

Nicholas Mukila Ndetei v Republic [2019] eKLR

the held that,

“the sentencing policy states at paragraph 4.2 that when carrying out sentencing all these objectives are geared to in totality, though in some instances some of the sentences may be in conflict.”

7. The court has considered the evidence on record However the court finds that death sentence is no longer mandatory and in the instant case court finds that a sentence of 40 years’ imprisonment is appropriate with effect from 15/5/2015.

8. Right of appeal explained.

DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT GARISSA THIS 24

TH

DAY OF MARCH, 2021.

……………….………………

C. KARIUKI

JUDGE