1. Mohamed Bakari Suleiman 2. Hussein Hamisi Mohamed v Director of Public Prosecution

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA PETITION NO. 62 OF 2019 (CONSOLIDATED WITH PETITION NO. 103 OF 2020) 1. MOHAMED BAKARI SULEIMAN 2. HUSSEIN HAMISI MOHAMED............................................PETITIONERS AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION................................RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners were convicted for the offence of Robbery with Violence contrary to Section 295 as read with 296(2) of the Penal Code and sentenced to death in Mombasa Cr. Case No. 3764 of 2007. They appealed in Mombasa HCCRA No. 212 of 2009 consolidated with Mombasa HCCRA 209 of 2009, and the Appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence upheld. The petitioners have already served 12 years imprisonment. 2. The Petitioners have now petitioned this Court for review of sentence in view of the Supreme Court declaration in Francis Kariokor Muruatetu & Another v Republic SCK Pet. No. 15 of 2015 [2017]) eKLR in which the apex court found the mandatory nature of the death sentence to be unconstitutional. Brief Circumstance of the Offence 3. The particulars are that on 17/11/2007, along Kingorani road, the Petitioners jointly, robbed William Chagusia Luvunga of Kshs. 300/=, and immediately before or immediately after the robbery slashed the said victim with a panga on the head. 4. The Petitioners on their part submitted that the life imprisonment meted upon them by the trial magistrate was unconstitutional since the mandatory nature of the sentence fettered the court’s discretion in passing the sentence and considering their mitigation. The Petitioners further submitted that they regretted the offence they committed and they are reformed having paid their debt to the society. 5. Ms. Wanjohi for the prosecution submitted that the aggravating circumstances of the offence committed outweigh the mitigating circumstances in this case. Therefore, taking into account the circumstances of the case, a deterrent sentence of 30 years including time served would be appropriate. The Determination 6. It is noteworthy that when the Supreme Court made the landmark judgment in the Muruatetu case in December 2017, many convicts approached the court for lesser sentences in all cases where the penalty clause prescribed a fixed and mandatory sentence; the argument being, that such sentences denied the court discretion in sentencing, and therefore, inconsistent with the Constitution. However, on 6/7/2021, the Supreme Court gave directions on the application of Muruatetu case to sentences in murder cases only. The Supreme Court has reiterated that its decision in the Muruatetu case did not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code, the Sexual Offences Act or any other statute, thus: - “[14] It should be apparent from the foregoing that Muruatetu cannot be the authority for stating that all provisions of the law prescribing mandatory or minimum sentences are inconsistent with the Constitution. It bears restating that it was a decision involving the two Petitioners who approached the Court for specific reliefs. The ultimate determination was confined to the issues presented by the Petitioners, and as framed by the Court. [15] To clear the confusion that exists with regard to the mandatory death sentence in offences other than murder, we direct in respect of other capital offences such as treason under Section 40 (3), robbery with violence under Section 296 (2), and

page 1 of 2