Kaume v DPP [2023] KEHC 26682 (KLR)

Kaume v DPP (Petition E073 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 26682 (KLR) (14 December 2023) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 26682 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Meru

Petition E073 of 2023

TW Cherere, J

December 14, 2023

Between

Jeremiah Kaume

Petitioner

and

The DPP

Respondent

Judgment

1. Petitioner was convicted of robbery with violence and sentenced to death. His appeal to the High Court vide Meru HCCr.Appeal No 173 of 2010 was dismissed.

2. Petitioner seeks resentence on the ground that he was sentenced to a mandatory sentence.

3. Ms. Rita for the DPP urged court to find that Petitioner was armed with dangerous weapons during the robbery and attacked various victims.

4. In Nicholas Mukila Ndetei –V- Republic (2018) eKLR, the appellant and others robbed several people while armed with machetes and other crude weapons and in the course of the robbery cut their victims, the court observed that the offences committed were serious. The court reduced the sentence of 30 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court to 25 years imprisonment.

5. In Peter Maina Kimani v Republic (2019) eKLR, the petitioner jointly with others while armed with a panga and metal rod robbed a complainant of KES. 4,000/-. During resentencing the court considered the fact that the appellant was a first offender and that the sentence imposed on an offender must be commensurate to his moral blameworthiness. The court set aside the life imprisonment, sentencing the appellant to serve 20 years imprisonment.

6. In William Okungu Kittiny –Vs- Republic (2018) eKLR the Court of Appeal applied mutatis mutandis the Muruatetu case to the offence of robbery with violence under Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. The said court accordingly held the provisions of Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code that provide for a mandatory death sentence for the offence of robbery with violence to be unconstitutional for the same reasons given by the Supreme Court in the Muruatetu case. The court held that the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code is a discretionary maximum sentence.

7. The aggravating factors in this matter are that Petitioner and another were armed with dangerous weapons during the robbery.

8. Flowing from the foregoing, I find that it would not serve any meaningful purpose to confine Petitioner to a life of hopelessness. I am therefore persuaded to resentence Petitioner to a determinate sentence.

9. In resentencing the Petitioner, I have considered the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the fact that he might have spent some time in custody from the date of his arrest on 19th August, 2009 to the date of conviction and he has already been in custody for a cumulative 14 years.

10. In the end, Petitioner is thus resentenced to serve 20 years from the date of his arrest on 19th August, 2009.

11. It is hoped that Petitioner will undertake some form of training as a way of reformation so that he can easily integrate with the community once released.

DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 14THDAY OF DECEMBER, 2023. WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGE_AppearancesCourt Assistant s - Kinoti/MunenePetitioner - Present in personFor the State - Ms. Rita (PC- 1)