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

The Republic of Kenya v The Director of Public Prosecutions

THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION PETITION NO. 174 OF 2018 RAMADHAN ALI..............................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS......RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner was convicted for the offence of robbery with violence in Criminal Court Case No. 3032 of 2003 Mombasa, and was sentenced to death. He also lost all appeals and is now in this court for resentencing pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu and Another [2017] eKLR in which the court decided that a mandatory death sentence is against the constitution. 2. The Petitioner has been in jail for 19 years. The prosecution prayed that the Petitioner be jailed for 30 years due to the gravity of the offence. On his part the Petitioner prayed that he be jailed for the time he has already served. 3. The purpose of sentencing is rehabilitation, retribution and reformation. He waylaid an advocate, Mr. Magolo and together with others robbed him. However, no injuries were reported. Yet the robbers acted in a gang and rained terror on the complainant. This court must send a clear message to would be robbers that they shall pay for their action once convicted. 4. I am satisfied that a jail term of 25 years would be adequate to serve the objectives of resentencing which I have stated above. 5. The upshot the Petitioner is hereby jailed for 25 years from the date of arrest. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Mombasa this 5th day of November, 2019. E. K. O. OGOLA JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Fedha for DPP Petitioner in person Mr. Kaunda Court Assistant

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.