'
The 1st accused was found guilty and convicted for the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
This court called for Pre-Sentence Report and the same was duly filed on 10th September 2025. This court has considered the report and the circumstances of the offence as well as the applicable penalty for the offence of murder under Section 204 of the Penal Code which provides:
‘‘Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.’’
However, the Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, declared that the mandatory nature of the death penalty was unconstitutional and affirmed that while the death sentence remains lawful, courts now have discretion to impose appropriate sentences depending on the circumstances of each case and mitigating or aggravating factors. The Supreme Court held that in exercising sentencing discretion some of the principles that should guide the court are:
- sentence is subject to mitigating factors
-sentence must fit the offender and the offence
-nature of offence, manner of commission, and the offenders motive
-proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation and community protection
The evidence on record shows that the 1st Accused went to the deceased’s house at 3.00 a.m., armed with a panga, broke the window and door, and forcibly gained entry and when the deceased escaped from the house he pursued him and while using a leathal weapon inflicted injuries to the head, chest, limbs, and abdomen — resulting in internal bleeding and ruptured spleen. This was not an impulsive act but one executed with deliberation and malice.
When the 1st Accused attacked the deceased in the house the offence was committed in the presence of PW1 and her minor children, causing them severe psychological trauma. Even after police arrived, the accused returned to the scene with others, armed, and continued to threaten and intimidate PW1, showing lack of remorse. The accused’s insistence that PW1 vacate the land demonstrated vindictiveness.
The Prosecuting Counsel confirmed the fact that the 1st Accused is a first offender and there was an alleged underlying tension within the neighborhood where PW1 was accused of harboring criminals and drugs dealers which, although unproven, provides context to the events. It has also been drawn to the attention of this court and the 1st Accused said in his evidence as well as in mitigation that he has a young family that depended on him. However, these mitigating factors are greatly outweighed by the impunity with which the Accused committed the offence without consideration of the rule of law.
The accused person’s claim that the deceased attempted to break into his shop did not come out during prosecution’s evidence and even his co-accused did not confirm if he had a shop or even that there was an attempt to break in. If these allegations were true the Accused should reported to the Police or to the local Administration for legal action to be taken and not take the law into his own hands. The information from the local Administration in the Pre-Sentence Report that the deceased was attacked by a mob due to break in peoples’ shops without any legal action having been taken cannot justify the action taken by the accused. There was no evidence that the deceased was killed by a mob. The evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses pointed to the accused person as the attacker who committed the act that took away the life of the deceased.
Taking into account the totality of circumstances above and comparable sentences in similar cases as well as the fact that the accused is a 1st offender this court finds that a term of 15 years imprisonment is appropriate and just in the circumstances.
The accused has a right of appeal on both conviction and sentence within 14 days.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI THIS 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.
'
The 1st accused was found guilty and convicted for the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
This court called for Pre-Sentence Report and the same was duly filed on 10th September 2025. This court has considered the report and the circumstances of the offence as well as the applicable penalty for the offence of murder under Section 204 of the Penal Code which provides:
‘‘Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.’’
However, the Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, declared that the mandatory nature of the death penalty was unconstitutional and affirmed that while the death sentence remains lawful, courts now have discretion to impose appropriate sentences depending on the circumstances of each case and mitigating or aggravating factors. The Supreme Court held that in exercising sentencing discretion some of the principles that should guide the court are:
- sentence is subject to mitigating factors
-sentence must fit the offender and the offence
-nature of offence, manner of commission, and the offenders motive
-proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation and community protection
The evidence on record shows that the 1st Accused went to the deceased’s house at 3.00 a.m., armed with a panga, broke the window and door, and forcibly gained entry and when the deceased escaped from the house he pursued him and while using a leathal weapon inflicted injuries to the head, chest, limbs, and abdomen — resulting in internal bleeding and ruptured spleen. This was not an impulsive act but one executed with deliberation and malice.
When the 1st Accused attacked the deceased in the house the offence was committed in the presence of PW1 and her minor children, causing them severe psychological trauma. Even after police arrived, the accused returned to the scene with others, armed, and continued to threaten and intimidate PW1, showing lack of remorse. The accused’s insistence that PW1 vacate the land demonstrated vindictiveness.
The Prosecuting Counsel confirmed the fact that the 1st Accused is a first offender and there was an alleged underlying tension within the neighborhood where PW1 was accused of harboring criminals and drugs dealers which, although unproven, provides context to the events. It has also been drawn to the attention of this court and the 1st Accused said in his evidence as well as in mitigation that he has a young family that depended on him. However, these mitigating factors are greatly outweighed by the impunity with which the Accused committed the offence without consideration of the rule of law.
The accused person’s claim that the deceased attempted to break into his shop did not come out during prosecution’s evidence and even his co-accused did not confirm if he had a shop or even that there was an attempt to break in. If these allegations were true the Accused should reported to the Police or to the local Administration for legal action to be taken and not take the law into his own hands. The information from the local Administration in the Pre-Sentence Report that the deceased was attacked by a mob due to break in peoples’ shops without any legal action having been taken cannot justify the action taken by the accused. There was no evidence that the deceased was killed by a mob. The evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses pointed to the accused person as the attacker who committed the act that took away the life of the deceased.
Taking into account the totality of circumstances above and comparable sentences in similar cases as well as the fact that the accused is a 1st offender this court finds that a term of 15 years imprisonment is appropriate and just in the circumstances.
The accused has a right of appeal on both conviction and sentence within 14 days.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI THIS 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.
'