( ARISING FROM HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO 40 OF 2000 AT
NAIROBI
IN THE MATTER OF: MISC CR APPLICATION NO 394 OF 2017 AT HIGH COURT
OF KENYA NAIROBI AS CONSOLIDATED WITH MISC CR
APP NO 614, 28, 560, 589, 590, AND 586 OF 2018 (FRANCIS
KARIOKO MURUATETU & 6 OTHERS V DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTION [2019] EKLR).
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: CRIMINAL CASE NO 382 OF 2000 AT CHIEF
MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAIROBI)
1. Background
1.1 The Applicant, David Karuga Njuguna, moved this Court by way of an undated Chamber Summons seeking an order that a sentence of two and a half (2½) years’ imprisonment imposed upon him in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 382 of 2000 be ordered to run concurrently with a sentence of forty (40) years’ imprisonment imposed by the High Court in Nairobi High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 394 of 2017, as consolidated with Miscellaneous Criminal Application Nos. 614, 28, 560, 589, 590 and 586 of 2018.
1.2 The material facts are not in dispute. The Applicant was convicted of murder and initially sentenced to death in High Court Criminal Case No. 40 of 2000. His appeal was dismissed. Following subsequent re-sentencing proceedings, the death sentence was substituted with a term of forty (40) years’ imprisonment, to run from 10th February 2000, the date of arrest.
1.3 The Applicant was also, in a separate matter, convicted and sentenced to two and a half (2½) years’ imprisonment by the Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court in Criminal Case No. 382 of 2000. He now seeks an order that the said sentence runs concurrently with the High Court sentence.
1.4 The application is supported by an affidavit and prison records demonstrating that the Applicant has been in custody continuously since his arrest in February 2000 and has undergone rehabilitation programmes while in prison. The Respondent did not oppose the application.
2. Issue for Determination
2.1 The issue for determination is whether this Court should order that the sentence imposed by the subordinate court runs concurrently with the sentence imposed by the High Court, in light of the objectives of sentencing and the circumstances of the case.
3. Applicable Law and Principles
3.1 Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a court, where a person is convicted at different trials, to direct that sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. The decision whether to order concurrency is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the objectives of sentencing.
3.2 The objectives of sentencing in Kenya are now well settled. In Bernard Kimani Gacheru v Republic [2002] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that sentencing is a matter of discretion guided by principles which include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, and proportionality.
3.3 In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing is not merely punitive but must take into account the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the offender, as well as the individual circumstances of each case.
3.4 Similarly, in Jared Koita Injiri v Republic [2019] eKLR, the High Court observed that the primary purpose of imprisonment is not vengeance but rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender into society as a law abiding citizen.
4. Analysis
4.1 The Court notes that although the sentences in question were imposed by courts of different hierarchy, they relate to offences committed within the same general period and have been served while the Applicant has been in continuous custody since 10th February 2000.
4.2 Ordering the sentences to run consecutively, in the circumstances of this case, would have no practical rehabilitative value, given that the Applicant is already serving a lengthy custodial sentence of forty (40) years commencing from the date of arrest. Conversely, ordering concurrency would not trivialize the offences committed but would accord with the principle of proportionality and the rehabilitative objective of sentencing.
4.3 The Court has considered the Applicant’s conduct while in custody, including evidence of remorse and participation in rehabilitation programmes. These factors militate in favour of a sentence structure that promotes reform rather than purely punitive accumulation of custodial terms.
4.4 The Respondent did not oppose the application, and no prejudice to the administration of justice has been demonstrated if the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
5. Disposition
5.1 In the exercise of this Court’s discretion under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and guided by the constitutional and jurisprudential emphasis on rehabilitation as a core objective of sentencing, the Court finds the application merited.
5.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the sentence of two and a half (2½) years’ imprisonment imposed upon the Applicant in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 382 of 2000 shall run concurrently with the sentence of forty (40) years’ imprisonment imposed in Nairobi High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 394 of 2017 (as consolidated), the latter sentence having commenced on 10th February 2000.
5.3 For avoidance of doubt, the Applicant shall continue to serve the forty (40) year sentence as previously ordered, subject to remission and other lawful prison considerations.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED at MOMBASA this 18th day of DECEMBER 2025.
Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.
WENDY KAGENDO MICHENI JUDGE
In the presence of:
THE APPLICANT
MR NGIRI FOR THE RESPONDENT
BEBORA COURT ASSISTANT
NAIROBI
IN THE MATTER OF: MISC CR APPLICATION NO 394 OF 2017 AT HIGH COURT
OF KENYA NAIROBI AS CONSOLIDATED WITH MISC CR
APP NO 614, 28, 560, 589, 590, AND 586 OF 2018 (FRANCIS
KARIOKO MURUATETU & 6 OTHERS V DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTION [2019] EKLR).
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: CRIMINAL CASE NO 382 OF 2000 AT CHIEF
MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAIROBI)
1. Background
1.1 The Applicant, David Karuga Njuguna, moved this Court by way of an undated Chamber Summons seeking an order that a sentence of two and a half (2½) years’ imprisonment imposed upon him in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 382 of 2000 be ordered to run concurrently with a sentence of forty (40) years’ imprisonment imposed by the High Court in Nairobi High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 394 of 2017, as consolidated with Miscellaneous Criminal Application Nos. 614, 28, 560, 589, 590 and 586 of 2018.
1.2 The material facts are not in dispute. The Applicant was convicted of murder and initially sentenced to death in High Court Criminal Case No. 40 of 2000. His appeal was dismissed. Following subsequent re-sentencing proceedings, the death sentence was substituted with a term of forty (40) years’ imprisonment, to run from 10th February 2000, the date of arrest.
1.3 The Applicant was also, in a separate matter, convicted and sentenced to two and a half (2½) years’ imprisonment by the Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court in Criminal Case No. 382 of 2000. He now seeks an order that the said sentence runs concurrently with the High Court sentence.
1.4 The application is supported by an affidavit and prison records demonstrating that the Applicant has been in custody continuously since his arrest in February 2000 and has undergone rehabilitation programmes while in prison. The Respondent did not oppose the application.
2. Issue for Determination
2.1 The issue for determination is whether this Court should order that the sentence imposed by the subordinate court runs concurrently with the sentence imposed by the High Court, in light of the objectives of sentencing and the circumstances of the case.
3. Applicable Law and Principles
3.1 Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a court, where a person is convicted at different trials, to direct that sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. The decision whether to order concurrency is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the objectives of sentencing.
3.2 The objectives of sentencing in Kenya are now well settled. In Bernard Kimani Gacheru v Republic [2002] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that sentencing is a matter of discretion guided by principles which include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, and proportionality.
3.3 In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing is not merely punitive but must take into account the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the offender, as well as the individual circumstances of each case.
3.4 Similarly, in Jared Koita Injiri v Republic [2019] eKLR, the High Court observed that the primary purpose of imprisonment is not vengeance but rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender into society as a law abiding citizen.
4. Analysis
4.1 The Court notes that although the sentences in question were imposed by courts of different hierarchy, they relate to offences committed within the same general period and have been served while the Applicant has been in continuous custody since 10th February 2000.
4.2 Ordering the sentences to run consecutively, in the circumstances of this case, would have no practical rehabilitative value, given that the Applicant is already serving a lengthy custodial sentence of forty (40) years commencing from the date of arrest. Conversely, ordering concurrency would not trivialize the offences committed but would accord with the principle of proportionality and the rehabilitative objective of sentencing.
4.3 The Court has considered the Applicant’s conduct while in custody, including evidence of remorse and participation in rehabilitation programmes. These factors militate in favour of a sentence structure that promotes reform rather than purely punitive accumulation of custodial terms.
4.4 The Respondent did not oppose the application, and no prejudice to the administration of justice has been demonstrated if the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
5. Disposition
5.1 In the exercise of this Court’s discretion under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and guided by the constitutional and jurisprudential emphasis on rehabilitation as a core objective of sentencing, the Court finds the application merited.
5.2 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the sentence of two and a half (2½) years’ imprisonment imposed upon the Applicant in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 382 of 2000 shall run concurrently with the sentence of forty (40) years’ imprisonment imposed in Nairobi High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 394 of 2017 (as consolidated), the latter sentence having commenced on 10th February 2000.
5.3 For avoidance of doubt, the Applicant shall continue to serve the forty (40) year sentence as previously ordered, subject to remission and other lawful prison considerations.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED at MOMBASA this 18th day of DECEMBER 2025.
Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.
WENDY KAGENDO MICHENI JUDGE
In the presence of:
THE APPLICANT
MR NGIRI FOR THE RESPONDENT
BEBORA COURT ASSISTANT