Case ID:185703

Patrick Muma Isaiah & another v Republic [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Revision E221 of 2021

Parties:

Patrick Muma Isaiah & Stephen Wafula Kuriati v Republic

Date Delivered:

18 Nov 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Kiambu

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Mary Muhanji Kasango

Citation:

Patrick Muma Isaiah & another v Republic [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

For the Respondent: Kasyoka

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Kiambu

Advocates:

For the Respondent: Kasyoka

History Advocates:

One party or some parties represented

Case Outcome:

Chamber summons dismissed

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 KIAMBU

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E221 OF 2021

1. PATRICK MUMA ISAIAH

2. STEPHEN WAFULA KURIATI..........................................APPLICANTS

VERSUS

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

RULING

1.

PATRICK MUMA ISAIAH

and

STEPHEN WAFULA KURIATI,

the applicants, have filed a chamber summons application seeking re-sentencing in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in

FRANCIS KARIOKO MURUATETU & ANOTHER VS. REPUBLIC

.

2. The two applicants have also filed a petition seeking similar prayers.

3. The application and the petition cannot be granted as sought because the Supreme Court gave a direction in the Petition No. 15 & 16 (consolidated) of 2015

FRANCIS KARIOKO MURUATETU & WILSON THIRIMBU MWANGI VS. REPUBLIC,

as follows:-

“

[7] In the meantime, it is public knowledge, and taking judicial notice, we d

o

agree with the observations of both

Mr. Hassan and Mr. Ochiel,

that while the report of the Task Force appointed by the Attorney General was awaited, courts below us have embarked on their own interpretation of this decision, applying it to cases relating to

Section 296(2)

of the Penal Code, and others under the Sexual

Offences Act, presumably assuming that the decision by this Court in this particular matter was equally applicable to other statutes prescribing mandatory or minimum sentences. We state

...

, there can be no justification for courts below us, to take the course that has now resulted in the pitiable state of incertitude and incoherence in the sentencing framework in the country, giving rise to an avalanche of applications for re-sentencing.

..

We therefore reiterate that, this Court’s decision in

Muruatetu,

did not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code, the

Sexual Offences Act

or any other statute.

..

[15]

To clear the confusion that exists with regard to the mandatory death sentence in offences other than murder, we direct in respect of other capital offences such as treason under Section 40 (3), robbery with violence under Section 296 (2), and attempted robbery with violence under Section 297 (2) of the Penal Code, that a challenge on the constitutional validity of the mandatory death penalty in such cases should be properly filed, presented, and fully argued before the High Court and escalated to the Court of Appeal, if necessary, at which a similar outcome as that in this case may be reached.

Muruatetu

as it now stands cannot directly be applicable to those cases.

”

(Underlining mine)

4. Muruatetu’s case cannot be applied to grant an order for re-sentencing as sought by the application. This is because Muruatetu’s principles only apply in murder cases. It follows the chamber summons and the petition for re-sentencing filed on 27

th

May, 2020 is dismissed.

RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021.

MARY KASANGO

JUDGE

Coram:

COURT ASSISTANT: MAURICE

FOR THE APPLICANTS: N/A

FOR THE RESPONDENT: KASYOKA

COURT

RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY.

MARY KASANGO

JUDGE