RULING ON SENTENCE
Introduction
1. The convict herein , Christopher Oirere Nyamareria, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on an unknown date between July 2025 and 28th November 2025 at Egetuki Village, Gucha Sub-County within Kisii County, he murdered Faith Moraa Osoro.
2. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement and has since been convicted. What remains for determination is the appropriate sentence to be imposed by this Court.
3. The h Court called for pre-sentence report from the Probation and Aftercare Service, Kisii County Station and the same was filed herein . I have a considered mitigation tendered on behalf of the accused, the circumstances of the offence, the views of the victim’s family as per the said report , the community attitude, and the applicable constitutional and statutory principles on sentencing.
Applicable Law and Principles
4. Section 203 of the Penal Code defines the offence of murder, while section 204 prescribes the sentence. The Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR held that the mandatory nature of the death sentence deprived courts of the discretion to consider the individual circumstances of each offender and each offence. The Court was clear that sentencing must remain a judicial function guided by proportionality, mitigation, aggravation, culpability and the circumstances of the case.
5. The Court is therefore required to impose a sentence that is lawful, proportionate and just. In doing so, the Court is guided by the objectives of sentencing, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, denunciation of unlawful conduct, and reintegration where appropriate.
6. The Court is also guided by the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, which require a sentencing court to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the offender’s personal circumstances, the impact on the victim and the victim’s family, the offender’s previous record, remorse, prospects of reform, and the need to protect the public.
Circumstances of the Offence
7. The material before the Court paints a grave and tragic picture. The deceased, Faith Moraa Osoro, was the convict’s wife. They had lived together as husband and wife and had a young child.
8. According to the pre-sentence report and the facts herein the convict killed the wife on the material day and he did not report the matter to the authorities or to the family.
9. Instead, he covered the body with a seat cover, dug a grave in the house and buried the deceased there. He then stayed in the house without informing anyone. When suspicions were raised, he initially denied involvement. He later confessed and led the police to the place where the body had been buried.
10. The post-mortem material before the Court indicates that the body was severely decomposed. The skull was depressed and there was an indication of severe head injury. The pathologist formed the opinion that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to strangulation, with severe head injury not being ruled out.
11. This is a femicide case which was followed by deliberate concealment of the body. The deceased was not only killed; her body was hidden in circumstances that deepened the anguish of her family and delayed closure.
Mitigating Factors
12. I have considered the mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused.
13. The accused is a young man. The pre-sentence report places his age at about 24 years. He is a first offender and has no previous criminal record. He dropped out of school at class eight and was engaged in casual work before his arrest.
14. The accused has expressed remorse. The report indicates that he pleaded guilty, took responsibility for the offence, and asked for forgiveness from the Court, society and the family of the deceased. He stated that he did not premeditate the death of his wife and that he was overwhelmed by anger.
15. His family, particularly his father, pleaded for leniency and expressed willingness to receive him back home. They viewed him as a young man who could still be corrected and rehabilitated.
16. I have also considered that the accused is said to have a young child who has been left without the care of the deceased mother. That circumstance, however, cannot override the gravity of the offence, but it is a relevant human factor in the overall sentencing exercise.
Aggravating Factors
17. Against those mitigating factors, there are substantial aggravating circumstances.
18. Firstly, the deceased was the accused’s wife. The offence was committed within a relationship of trust, intimacy and domestic responsibility. A spouse is entitled to protection, dignity and security within the home. The home should not become a place of fear, violence and death.
19. Secondly, the violence was directed against a vulnerable victim in a domestic setting. The deceased was the mother of the accused’s young child. Her death has left a child without maternal care and has inflicted lasting pain upon her parents and family.
20. Thirdly, the conduct of the accused after the death of the deceased was deeply aggravating. He did not immediately report the death. He did not seek help. He did not notify the deceased’s family. Instead, he buried the body inside the house and concealed the death. That conduct demonstrates an attempt to defeat justice and denied the deceased’s family the dignity of knowing what had happened to their daughter.
21. Fourthly, the victim’s family is opposed to a non-custodial sentence. They expressed bitterness and anguish. They asked that the accused be taught a lesson through incarceration and stated that they had not received an apology from the offender’s family. They also indicated that they were not ready for reconciliation.
22. Fifth/, the community attitude is negative. The pre-sentence report indicates that there is tension, animosity and fear within the community. The local administration and community members expressed concern that releasing the accused to the community at this stage may expose him to risk and may also undermine public confidence in justice.
23. Sixthly, the Probation Officer concluded that the accused may not benefit from a non-custodial sentence, taking into account community sentiments, safety concerns, his weak community ties, and the circumstances of the offence.
Victim Impact and Community Interest
24. Sentencing must not ignore the voice of victims. The family of the deceased lost a daughter in extremely painful circumstances. Their grief was aggravated by the concealment of the body and by the manner in which the deceased was buried in the house. The Court recognises their loss and the dignity of the deceased.
25. The Court must also speak firmly against domestic violence. Disputes within marriage or relationships must never be resolved through violence. Anger, suspicion, quarrels over money, or domestic disagreements cannot justify the taking of life.
26. The sentence must therefore reflect the sanctity of life under Article 26 of the Constitution, the dignity of the deceased under Article 28, and society’s expectation that those who unlawfully take life must face serious consequences.
Whether a Non-Custodial Sentence is Appropriate
27. I have carefully considered whether the accused is suitable for a non-custodial sentence.
28. The offence resulted in the loss of life. It involved domestic violence. It was followed by concealment of the body. The victim’s family is opposed to release. The community is hostile. The Probation Officer does not recommend a non-custodial sentence.
29. In the circumstances, a non-custodial sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and would neither protect the public interest nor adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime.
Appropriate Sentence
30. The death penalty remains a lawful sentence under section 204 of the Penal Code. However, following Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, it is no longer mandatory. The Court must exercise discretion.
31. In the present case, while the offence is grave, I have considered the accused’s youth, his status as a first offender, his plea of guilty, his expression of remorse, and the possibility of rehabilitation within a custodial setting. Those factors persuade me that the death sentence is not appropriate.
32. However, the aggravating circumstances are weighty. The accused killed his wife and thereafter concealed her body. The deceased’s family has suffered profound pain. The community remains apprehensive. The sentence must be sufficiently severe to punish, deter, denounce domestic homicide, and allow for structured rehabilitation.
33. In this case, despite the gravity of the offence the convict saved the court’s time by entering into a plea bargain agreement . He deserves some concession .
34. Balancing all these factors, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence of twenty (20) years’ imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances .
35. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, enjoins courts to to take into account the period the accused has spent in lawful custody while meting out sentence . The convict was first arraigned in court on 15.12.25 .
35. The convict , Christopher Oirere Nyamareria, is hereby sentenced to twenty (20) years’ imprisonment.
36. The period already spent in lawful custody shall be taken into account pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In computing his sentence The sentence shall run from 15.12. 25 when he was first remanded till completion.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.5.26
Delivered virtually via teams platform in the presence of the convict. Mr Omwenga for him , Mr Koima for prosecution and CA KIpchirchir
Introduction
1. The convict herein , Christopher Oirere Nyamareria, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on an unknown date between July 2025 and 28th November 2025 at Egetuki Village, Gucha Sub-County within Kisii County, he murdered Faith Moraa Osoro.
2. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement and has since been convicted. What remains for determination is the appropriate sentence to be imposed by this Court.
3. The h Court called for pre-sentence report from the Probation and Aftercare Service, Kisii County Station and the same was filed herein . I have a considered mitigation tendered on behalf of the accused, the circumstances of the offence, the views of the victim’s family as per the said report , the community attitude, and the applicable constitutional and statutory principles on sentencing.
Applicable Law and Principles
4. Section 203 of the Penal Code defines the offence of murder, while section 204 prescribes the sentence. The Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR held that the mandatory nature of the death sentence deprived courts of the discretion to consider the individual circumstances of each offender and each offence. The Court was clear that sentencing must remain a judicial function guided by proportionality, mitigation, aggravation, culpability and the circumstances of the case.
5. The Court is therefore required to impose a sentence that is lawful, proportionate and just. In doing so, the Court is guided by the objectives of sentencing, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, denunciation of unlawful conduct, and reintegration where appropriate.
6. The Court is also guided by the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, which require a sentencing court to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the offender’s personal circumstances, the impact on the victim and the victim’s family, the offender’s previous record, remorse, prospects of reform, and the need to protect the public.
Circumstances of the Offence
7. The material before the Court paints a grave and tragic picture. The deceased, Faith Moraa Osoro, was the convict’s wife. They had lived together as husband and wife and had a young child.
8. According to the pre-sentence report and the facts herein the convict killed the wife on the material day and he did not report the matter to the authorities or to the family.
9. Instead, he covered the body with a seat cover, dug a grave in the house and buried the deceased there. He then stayed in the house without informing anyone. When suspicions were raised, he initially denied involvement. He later confessed and led the police to the place where the body had been buried.
10. The post-mortem material before the Court indicates that the body was severely decomposed. The skull was depressed and there was an indication of severe head injury. The pathologist formed the opinion that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to strangulation, with severe head injury not being ruled out.
11. This is a femicide case which was followed by deliberate concealment of the body. The deceased was not only killed; her body was hidden in circumstances that deepened the anguish of her family and delayed closure.
Mitigating Factors
12. I have considered the mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused.
13. The accused is a young man. The pre-sentence report places his age at about 24 years. He is a first offender and has no previous criminal record. He dropped out of school at class eight and was engaged in casual work before his arrest.
14. The accused has expressed remorse. The report indicates that he pleaded guilty, took responsibility for the offence, and asked for forgiveness from the Court, society and the family of the deceased. He stated that he did not premeditate the death of his wife and that he was overwhelmed by anger.
15. His family, particularly his father, pleaded for leniency and expressed willingness to receive him back home. They viewed him as a young man who could still be corrected and rehabilitated.
16. I have also considered that the accused is said to have a young child who has been left without the care of the deceased mother. That circumstance, however, cannot override the gravity of the offence, but it is a relevant human factor in the overall sentencing exercise.
Aggravating Factors
17. Against those mitigating factors, there are substantial aggravating circumstances.
18. Firstly, the deceased was the accused’s wife. The offence was committed within a relationship of trust, intimacy and domestic responsibility. A spouse is entitled to protection, dignity and security within the home. The home should not become a place of fear, violence and death.
19. Secondly, the violence was directed against a vulnerable victim in a domestic setting. The deceased was the mother of the accused’s young child. Her death has left a child without maternal care and has inflicted lasting pain upon her parents and family.
20. Thirdly, the conduct of the accused after the death of the deceased was deeply aggravating. He did not immediately report the death. He did not seek help. He did not notify the deceased’s family. Instead, he buried the body inside the house and concealed the death. That conduct demonstrates an attempt to defeat justice and denied the deceased’s family the dignity of knowing what had happened to their daughter.
21. Fourthly, the victim’s family is opposed to a non-custodial sentence. They expressed bitterness and anguish. They asked that the accused be taught a lesson through incarceration and stated that they had not received an apology from the offender’s family. They also indicated that they were not ready for reconciliation.
22. Fifth/, the community attitude is negative. The pre-sentence report indicates that there is tension, animosity and fear within the community. The local administration and community members expressed concern that releasing the accused to the community at this stage may expose him to risk and may also undermine public confidence in justice.
23. Sixthly, the Probation Officer concluded that the accused may not benefit from a non-custodial sentence, taking into account community sentiments, safety concerns, his weak community ties, and the circumstances of the offence.
Victim Impact and Community Interest
24. Sentencing must not ignore the voice of victims. The family of the deceased lost a daughter in extremely painful circumstances. Their grief was aggravated by the concealment of the body and by the manner in which the deceased was buried in the house. The Court recognises their loss and the dignity of the deceased.
25. The Court must also speak firmly against domestic violence. Disputes within marriage or relationships must never be resolved through violence. Anger, suspicion, quarrels over money, or domestic disagreements cannot justify the taking of life.
26. The sentence must therefore reflect the sanctity of life under Article 26 of the Constitution, the dignity of the deceased under Article 28, and society’s expectation that those who unlawfully take life must face serious consequences.
Whether a Non-Custodial Sentence is Appropriate
27. I have carefully considered whether the accused is suitable for a non-custodial sentence.
28. The offence resulted in the loss of life. It involved domestic violence. It was followed by concealment of the body. The victim’s family is opposed to release. The community is hostile. The Probation Officer does not recommend a non-custodial sentence.
29. In the circumstances, a non-custodial sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and would neither protect the public interest nor adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime.
Appropriate Sentence
30. The death penalty remains a lawful sentence under section 204 of the Penal Code. However, following Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, it is no longer mandatory. The Court must exercise discretion.
31. In the present case, while the offence is grave, I have considered the accused’s youth, his status as a first offender, his plea of guilty, his expression of remorse, and the possibility of rehabilitation within a custodial setting. Those factors persuade me that the death sentence is not appropriate.
32. However, the aggravating circumstances are weighty. The accused killed his wife and thereafter concealed her body. The deceased’s family has suffered profound pain. The community remains apprehensive. The sentence must be sufficiently severe to punish, deter, denounce domestic homicide, and allow for structured rehabilitation.
33. In this case, despite the gravity of the offence the convict saved the court’s time by entering into a plea bargain agreement . He deserves some concession .
34. Balancing all these factors, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence of twenty (20) years’ imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances .
35. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, enjoins courts to to take into account the period the accused has spent in lawful custody while meting out sentence . The convict was first arraigned in court on 15.12.25 .
35. The convict , Christopher Oirere Nyamareria, is hereby sentenced to twenty (20) years’ imprisonment.
36. The period already spent in lawful custody shall be taken into account pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In computing his sentence The sentence shall run from 15.12. 25 when he was first remanded till completion.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.5.26
Delivered virtually via teams platform in the presence of the convict. Mr Omwenga for him , Mr Koima for prosecution and CA KIpchirchir