Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCriminal Appeal No. 184 of 2013· [2019] KECA 7 (KLR)

David Kiplangat Rono v Republic [2019] KECA 7 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
19 March 2019
SKS. Gatembu KairuFSF. SichaleSKS. ole Kantai
357 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence can no longer stand, and sent the case back for fresh sentencing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short judgment of the Court of Appeal (Gatembu, Sichale and Kantai, JJA) determined a second appeal by David Kiplangat Rono, who had been convicted of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, sentenced to death on 25th May 2011, and had his first appeal dismissed by the High Court of Kenya at Kericho on 24th October 2013. The appellant raised a single ground: that the mandatory nature of the death sentence had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Francis Muruatetu & Another v Republic, and sought a reference back for resentencing. Prosecution counsel agreed. The court, citing the 'new jurisprudence' established by Muruatetu, did not disturb the conviction but allowed the appeal on sentence in part by remitting the file to the High Court at Kericho to take the appellant's mitigation and award an appropriate sentence, with the file to be mentioned within fourteen days. The judgment is a single judgment of the whole court with no separate opinions or dissents and makes no costs order.

Key legal issues

#
01

Constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence as applied to the appellant

Holding

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Muruatetu & Another v Republic, the mandatory nature of the death sentence is unconstitutional; the appellant's case was referred for resentencing.

Reasoning

Counsel for the appellant relied on the sole ground in the memorandum of appeal, that the mandatory death sentence had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Prosecution counsel conceded. The court acknowledged the new jurisprudence and, rather than re-sentence itself, remitted the file to the High Court at Kericho to take mitigation and award an appropriate sentence, to be mentioned within fourteen days.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an appellant was sentenced under the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence, and following Muruatetu, the appellate court may remit the matter to the High Court for mitigation and an appropriate sentence.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The file is remitted to the High Court at Kericho to take the appellant's mitigation and award an appropriate sentence
  2. 2.The file to be mentioned in the High Court at Kericho within the next fourteen (14) days for appropriate orders

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Penal Codesection 296(2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Francis Muruatetu & Another vs. Republic
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Kericho
Kericho HCCRA No. 23 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code (criminal appellate jurisdiction); sentence review in light of the Supreme Court's Muruatetu jurisprudence

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Kiplangat Rono v Republic [2019] KECA 7 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/7/eng@2019-03-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.