SKN v Republic (Criminal Appeal 18 of 2019) [2024] KECA 498 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that life imprisonment means 30 years, replacing an indefinite life sentence with a fixed 30-year term.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court can tamper with the sentence imposed on the appellant
- 2.Whether an indefinite life imprisonment sentence is constitutional and can be justified given the emerging jurisprudence revolving around human rights and dignity
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over sentence from the High Court
The Court has jurisdiction under section 379(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to entertain an appeal against a sentence from the High Court, but not where the sentence is fixed by law.
The court noted that section 379(1)(a) & (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code permits a person convicted on a trial held by the High Court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months to appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and, with leave, against sentence unless the sentence is one fixed by law. Following Muruatetu, the mandatory death sentence for murder is no longer absolute, so the life sentence imposed was open to appellate interference on sentence.
Constitutionality of indeterminate life imprisonment
An indeterminate life imprisonment sentence is unjustifiable, discriminatory, unfair and repugnant to equality before the law under Article 27; life imprisonment translates to thirty years' imprisonment.
Relying on Muruatetu and Julius Kitsao Manyeso, and on a comparative survey in Evans Nyamari Ayako of decisions from Namibia, Germany, South Africa, Mauritius, Spain, Zimbabwe, the European Court of Human Rights, Malaysia and Pakistan, the court held that indeterminate life imprisonment is cruel and degrading punishment antithetical to human rights and dignity. Taking account of comparative jurisprudence and prevailing socio-economic conditions in Kenya, the court fixed the meaning of life imprisonment at thirty years, grounded in a purposive reading of Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution.
Appropriateness of the life sentence on the facts
The trial judge properly exercised discretion in imposing the life sentence given the brutality and the rise of domestic violence transforming into femicide, but the indeterminate nature of the sentence required substitution with a 30-year term.
The court found no fault in the learned judge exercising her discretion in meting out the life sentence, noting the appellant brutally beat the deceased in her defenceless state, cut her with a panga and pushed her into a burning fire in the presence of her children, and showed no concern the following morning. Domestic violence, which is fast transforming into femicide, can only be deterred by a stiff sentence. However, given the unconstitutionality of indeterminate life imprisonment, the sentence was set aside and replaced with thirty years.
Legal principles established
#- Life imprisonment in Kenya does not mean the natural life of the convict but translates to thirty (30) years' imprisonment, and an indeterminate life sentence is unconstitutional as discriminatory and degrading under Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution.
Court orders
#- 1.The sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court is set aside
- 2.Substituted with a term sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment
- 3.By dint of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the imprisonment term shall be computed to begin running from 6th January 2012, when the appellant was arraigned in court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Criminal Case No. 1 of 2012 (Bungoma)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 379(1)(a) & (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Relief refused
#Appeal on conviction
The appellant abandoned his appeal on conviction; only sentence was in issue
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
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 hereby set aside the sentence of life imprisonment imposed and, substitute it with a term sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment.
By dint of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the imprisonment term shall be computed to begin running from that date.
life imprisonment in Kenya does not mean the natural life of the convict; rather, life imprisonment translates to (30) thirty years' imprisonment.
This emerging jurisprudence is a product of a purposive reading of Articles 27 and 28 of our Constitution as applied to sentencing.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the appeal before the Court of Appeal is not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the trial case number (Bungoma Criminal Case No. 1 of 2012) is given.
The judgment contains contradictory characterisations of the appellant's counsel's position: the State is recorded as defending the life sentence while also conceding that indeterminate life sentences are unconstitutional.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "SKN v Republic (Criminal Appeal 18 of 2019) [2024] KECA 498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Criminal Appeal (Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/498/eng@2024-04-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.