Kitsao Charo Ngati v Republic [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Case Brief: Kitsao Charo Ngati v Republic [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Kitsao Charo Ngati v. The Director of Public Prosecution
- Case Number: Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Malindi
- Date Delivered: October 26, 2020
- Category of Law: Criminal
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case revolves around the petitioner’s request for re-sentencing based on the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v. Republic (2017) eKLR, which questioned the constitutionality of mandatory death sentences and allowed for judicial discretion in sentencing.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Kitsao Charo Ngati, along with two co-accused, was initially charged with robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code and an additional charge of rape under the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. After a full trial, Ngati was convicted and sentenced to death for robbery, while the sentence for rape was held in abeyance. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the bench that convicted him was unconstitutionally empaneled. The Supreme Court agreed and ordered a re-hearing of his case in the High Court.

4. Procedural History:
Following the Supreme Court's decision, Ngati's case was re-heard by Justice Korir on February 14, 2019. The High Court dismissed his appeal regarding the conviction but, in light of the Muruatetu decision, re-evaluated his sentence. Ngati's mitigation was considered, and the death sentence was replaced with a 30-year imprisonment term, effective from the date of the original sentencing. Subsequently, Ngati filed a petition seeking re-sentencing to the period already served, which the High Court found to be without merit.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered various constitutional provisions, including Articles 19, 21, 22, and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, which pertain to fundamental rights and freedoms. The relevant statutes included Section 296(2) of the Penal Code and the precedents set by the Muruatetu case regarding sentencing discretion.
- Case Law: The Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v. Republic (2017) eKLR is pivotal, as it established that mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional and that courts must consider mitigating factors when sentencing. This case directly impacted the court's approach to Ngati’s re-sentencing.
- Application: In applying the rules and case law, the court emphasized that Ngati's petition was unnecessary since his mitigation had already been considered during the re-sentencing process. The court reiterated that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the crimes and the injuries inflicted on the victim.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed Ngati's petition for re-sentencing, affirming the 30-year imprisonment sentence that had already been imposed. The ruling underscored the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing, especially in light of the Muruatetu precedent, and clarified that the petitioner had already received the relief he sought.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as the ruling was delivered by a single judge, Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi, who found the petition to be without merit.

8. Summary:
The outcome of Kitsao Charo Ngati v. The Director of Public Prosecution reaffirmed the High Court's authority to impose discretionary sentences following the Muruatetu ruling. The case highlights the ongoing evolution of sentencing practices in Kenya, particularly regarding serious offenses such as robbery and sexual violence, and the court's commitment to considering individual circumstances in sentencing decisions.