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

Kennedy Onyango Muga v Republic

Muga v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E021 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 5045 (KLR) (7 May 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5045 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E021 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J MAY 7, 2024 BETWEEN KENNEDY ONYANGO MUGA ............................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT (From the original conviction and sentence in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 1082 of 2005 at Maseno) RULING 1. The Applicant has sought very substantive orders through a Notice of Motion couched as a Petition for the application of the principles espoused in the Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR. 2. He has not annexed any document by way of proceedings, judgment from all the 3 levels of courts or any testimonial inviting this court to reconsider the death sentence imposed on him, since he also seeks discretion of the court and noting that death sentence per se is not unconstitutional. 3. I am unable to set down the application for hearing as it is not supported by any material. 4. The applicant is granted seven (7) days of today to file documents in support of his application and in default, the application shall stand dismissed. 5. Mention on 21st May 2024. 6. Signal to issue. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 R. E. ABURILI https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/5045/eng@2024-05-07 1

page 1 of 2

JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/5045/eng@2024-05-07 2

page 2 of 2

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.