Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Gideon Meitekin Koiyet v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISII CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 55 OF 2018 BETWEEN GIDEON MEITEKIN KOIYET...............PETITIONER VERSUS REPUBLIC.............................................. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks resentencing. He was convicted of the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death. His appeal in the High Court, in HCCR No. 90 of 2007 was dismissed and his second appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No 297 of 2012 was also dismissed. 2. The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muratetu & Another vs. Republic SCK Petition No. 15 of 2015 declaring the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional. This Court of Appeal’s decision in William Okungu vs. Republic Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2013held as follows; [9] From the foregoing, we hold that the findings and holding of the Supreme Court particularly in paragraph 69 applies mutatis mutandis to Section 296 (2) and 297 (2) of the Penal Code. Thus, the sentence of death under Section 296 (2) and 297 (2) of the Penal Code is a discretionary maximum punishment. 3. I have read the proceedings in the lower court and considered, the circumstances of the case, I also note that the petitioner has been in custody since 7/6/2006, he was sentenced on the 14/6/2007. I sentence the petitioner to fifteen (15) years from 14 th June 2007. 4. Dated signed and delivered at Kisii this 29th day of March 2019. R.E.OUGO JUDGE In the presence of; Petitioner In person Mr. Otieno Senior Prosecution Counsel Office of the DPP Rael Court Clerk

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.