Mathew Kiplalam Chepkieng v Republic [2019] KECA 688 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal replaced a mandatory death sentence with a 10-year prison term, confirming Murder sentences must now consider individual circumstances after Muruatetu.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.The nature of the sentence to be meted on the appellant in light of the developments in the law regarding the mandatory death sentence for murder following the Muruatetu decision
Key legal issues
#Whether the mandatory death sentence imposed on the appellant stood in light of the Muruatetu decision
The death sentence was set aside because the trial judge considered himself bound by the mandatory penalty under section 204 and did not exercise sentencing discretion; the Court substituted ten years' imprisonment.
The Supreme Court in Muruatetu declared section 204 of the Penal Code invalid to the extent it provides a mandatory death sentence for murder, though the death penalty remains available as a discretionary maximum. This Court in Kittiny held that Muruatetu binds all courts immediately and permits sentence re-hearings in pending matters. The trial judge here stated the law provided only one sentence, showing he did not exercise discretion, rendering the death sentence inappropriate given mitigating factors.
The Court's power on a first appeal to revisit sentence
The Court has jurisdiction to direct a sentence re-hearing or pass any appropriate sentence that the High Court could have lawfully passed.
Relying on its own decision in William Okungu Kittiny v Republic, the Court confirmed that Muruatetu's declaration of invalidity had immediate binding effect on all courts and did not bar lower courts from ordering sentence re-hearings in pending matters. The Court therefore exercised its own sentencing jurisdiction directly rather than remitting the matter to the High Court, considering the appellant's three years in custody, family trauma, likely stigma and first-offender status.
Legal principles established
#- The Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu had immediate and binding effect on all other courts and does not prohibit subordinate courts from ordering sentence re-hearing in pending matters
- A first appellate court must re-examine and analyse the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions while allowing for the trial court's advantage of seeing the witnesses
- Following Muruatetu, the death sentence for murder is a discretionary maximum, not a mandatory sentence, and a sentencing court must consider mitigation
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal against sentence allowed
- 2.Sentence of death set aside
- 3.Substituted sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment to take effect from 14th June, 2016, when the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- HCCRC. No. 10 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a criminal appeal from the High Court; the Court asserts that it has jurisdiction to direct a sentence rehearing or pass any appropriate sentence the High Court could have lawfully passed, in light of Muruatetu
Relief refused
#Appeal against conviction
Withdrown by appellant's counsel; only the appeal against sentence was pursued
Costs
No costs order made
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
we allow the appeal against sentence, set aside the death penalty and substitute a sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment to take effect from14th June, 2016, when the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder.
We note that this Court has jurisdiction to direct a sentence rehearing or pass any appropriate sentence that the High Court could have lawfully passed.
this Court held that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Muruatetu case (supra) had an immediate and binding effect on all other courts and that the decision did not prohibit courts below it from ordering sentence re-hearing in any matter pending before those courts.
the trial judge did not exercise his discretion in sentencing the appellant as he considered himself bound by the death penalty provided under Section 204 of the Penal Code.
The sentence of death is set aside.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the post mortem report indicated the cause of death of 'the appellant' rather than the deceased, an apparent drafting error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathew Kiplalam Chepkieng v Republic [2019] KECA 688 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/688/eng@2019-06-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.