REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E007 OF 2025
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JEREMIAH LEMAYIAN………………….………………………………………. ACCUSED
SENTENCING
02/07/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused person, Jeremiah Lemayian, was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on 8 th August 2025 at Huruma Estate in Kilgoris Town, within Transmara West Sub-County, Narok County, he murdered Joseph Kariuki Waweru.
2) Subsequently, pursuant to a Plea Agreement dated 6th November 2025 and entered into under Sections 137A–137O of the Criminal Procedure Code, the charge was reduced to manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
3) On 4 th June 2026, the accused pleaded guilty to the substituted charge. The facts contained in the plea agreement were read out and explained to him, whereupon he admitted them as true by stating:
“The facts are true.”
4) Upon being satisfied that the plea was unequivocal and that the accused fully understood the nature and consequences of the charge, the court convicted him on his own plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
5) Learned prosecution counsel, Mr Okeyo, informed the court that the accused is a first offender and has no previous criminal record.
6) In mitigation, learned counsel Ms Kithinji submitted that the accused is twenty-one (21) years old and a single father of a young daughter who depends entirely upon him. Counsel further submitted that the accused's continued incarceration would adversely affect the welfare of the child. It was also submitted that the accused has a sickly mother who relies upon him for support.
7) Counsel urged the court to consider that the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period, is genuinely remorseful for the loss of life, has accepted responsibility for his actions, and has demonstrated prospects of rehabilitation. The court was urged to impose a lenient sentence that would allow him to reform and eventually become a productive member of society.
8) The court has carefully considered the plea agreement, the facts of the case, the mitigation by counsel, the accused’s personal mitigation, the Victim Impact information contained in the Probation Officer’s Report dated 22.6.2026, and the applicable law. The report heavily relies on the statement the officer recorded from the accused, which is to the effect that while in a bar he drank with the deceased and his girlfriend, he realized that the victim/deceased had love affairs with his then girlfriend Judy, thus they fought and that is when he realized he committed the offence. His anger drove him to commit the offence. The report discloses a previous conviction for having narcotic drugs. He was awarded a deterrence sentence, which he served, though the period is not indicated.
B. ANALYSIS
9) The court recognizes that manslaughter under Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code is a serious offence, with the potential for life imprisonment, but emphasizes that sentencing must be tailored to the case’s circumstances and legal principles.
10) The Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR emphasized that sentencing is a judicial function that must take into account the unique circumstances of each offender and offence.
11) Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493 held that an appellate court will only interfere with a sentence where the sentencing court acted on wrong principles, overlooked material factors, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. This underscores the principle that sentencing must balance all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ensuring fairness for all parties involved.
12) The court has also considered the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016, which identify the objectives of sentencing as including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, and denunciation. The sentence imposed must therefore reflect not only the interests of the offender but also those of the victim’s family and society at large.
13) The admitted facts reveal that on the material night, the deceased and his friends were drinking and dancing in a bar. Also present was the accused's girlfriend. Investigations established that the accused was known to be possessive and overprotective of his girlfriend and became agitated by her interaction with the deceased and his companions.
14) Later that night, the deceased was waylaid and fatally stabbed. His body was discovered the following morning, lying in a pool of blood with visible stab wounds. Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of the accused, who admitted his involvement in the offence, and led police officers to the recovery of a blood-stained knife and blood-stained clothes from his residence. These exhibits were subsequently subjected to forensic examination.
15) The court considers the following as aggravating circumstances. First, a human life was unlawfully lost. Second, the offence was committed using a dangerous weapon, namely a knife. Third, the attack appears to have been motivated by jealousy and resulted in fatal injuries being inflicted upon the deceased. The sanctity of human life is protected under Article 26 of the Constitution, and any unlawful deprivation of life must attract an appropriate penal sanction.
16) The pre-bail report discloses a previous conviction for having narcotic drugs. He was awarded a deterrence sentence, which he served, though the period is not indicated. Thus, the accused is not a first offender as he has a previous criminal record.
17) Against those aggravating factors, the court has weighed several mitigating circumstances. He is a youthful offender aged only twenty-one years. He entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty, thereby saving judicial time and sparing witnesses and the deceased's family the emotional burden of a full trial.
18) The court has also considered that the accused is a single father of a young child, has a sickly mother who depends upon him, and has expressed genuine remorse for his actions. A plea of guilty indicates acceptance of responsibility and constitutes a significant mitigating factor.
19) The Court of Appeal in Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR observed that manslaughter encompasses a broad range of unlawful killings and that the sentence to be imposed depends on the peculiar circumstances of each case. The court must therefore strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
20) Having carefully weighed all the relevant considerations, this court is satisfied that a non-custodial sentence would not adequately meet the ends of justice. The offence resulted in the loss of life through a violent knife attack. A custodial sentence is therefore necessary to mark society's condemnation of the conduct, deter similar offences, and promote respect for the law.
21) At the same time, the court recognises the accused's youthfulness, his status as a previous offender is a scar on his record, his plea of guilty, his remorse, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court is persuaded that, in the circumstances, a sentence less than the statutory maximum is appropriate.
22) In the court's view, a sentence of ten (10) years' imprisonment properly balances the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case and sufficiently advances the objectives of sentencing.
C. SENTENCE
i. Consequently, the accused person, Jeremiah Lemayian, is hereby sentenced to ten (10) years' imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
ii. Pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR, the period spent in custody before sentence shall be taken into account. The sentence shall run from the date the accused was first remanded in custody in connection with this offence.
23) Right of appeal explained (22.8 2025).
24) It is so ordered .
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KILGORIS, THIS 2 ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
KILGORIS HCCRC NO. E007 OF 2025 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E007 OF 2025
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JEREMIAH LEMAYIAN………………….………………………………………. ACCUSED
SENTENCING
02/07/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused person, Jeremiah Lemayian, was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on 8 th August 2025 at Huruma Estate in Kilgoris Town, within Transmara West Sub-County, Narok County, he murdered Joseph Kariuki Waweru.
2) Subsequently, pursuant to a Plea Agreement dated 6th November 2025 and entered into under Sections 137A–137O of the Criminal Procedure Code, the charge was reduced to manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
3) On 4 th June 2026, the accused pleaded guilty to the substituted charge. The facts contained in the plea agreement were read out and explained to him, whereupon he admitted them as true by stating:
“The facts are true.”
4) Upon being satisfied that the plea was unequivocal and that the accused fully understood the nature and consequences of the charge, the court convicted him on his own plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
5) Learned prosecution counsel, Mr Okeyo, informed the court that the accused is a first offender and has no previous criminal record.
6) In mitigation, learned counsel Ms Kithinji submitted that the accused is twenty-one (21) years old and a single father of a young daughter who depends entirely upon him. Counsel further submitted that the accused's continued incarceration would adversely affect the welfare of the child. It was also submitted that the accused has a sickly mother who relies upon him for support.
7) Counsel urged the court to consider that the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period, is genuinely remorseful for the loss of life, has accepted responsibility for his actions, and has demonstrated prospects of rehabilitation. The court was urged to impose a lenient sentence that would allow him to reform and eventually become a productive member of society.
8) The court has carefully considered the plea agreement, the facts of the case, the mitigation by counsel, the accused’s personal mitigation, the Victim Impact information contained in the Probation Officer’s Report dated 22.6.2026, and the applicable law. The report heavily relies on the statement the officer recorded from the accused, which is to the effect that while in a bar he drank with the deceased and his girlfriend, he realized that the victim/deceased had love affairs with his then girlfriend Judy, thus they fought and that is when he realized he committed the offence. His anger drove him to commit the offence. The report discloses a previous conviction for having narcotic drugs. He was awarded a deterrence sentence, which he served, though the period is not indicated.
B. ANALYSIS
9) The court recognizes that manslaughter under Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code is a serious offence, with the potential for life imprisonment, but emphasizes that sentencing must be tailored to the case’s circumstances and legal principles.
10) The Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR emphasized that sentencing is a judicial function that must take into account the unique circumstances of each offender and offence.
11) Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493 held that an appellate court will only interfere with a sentence where the sentencing court acted on wrong principles, overlooked material factors, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. This underscores the principle that sentencing must balance all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ensuring fairness for all parties involved.
12) The court has also considered the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016, which identify the objectives of sentencing as including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, and denunciation. The sentence imposed must therefore reflect not only the interests of the offender but also those of the victim’s family and society at large.
13) The admitted facts reveal that on the material night, the deceased and his friends were drinking and dancing in a bar. Also present was the accused's girlfriend. Investigations established that the accused was known to be possessive and overprotective of his girlfriend and became agitated by her interaction with the deceased and his companions.
14) Later that night, the deceased was waylaid and fatally stabbed. His body was discovered the following morning, lying in a pool of blood with visible stab wounds. Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of the accused, who admitted his involvement in the offence, and led police officers to the recovery of a blood-stained knife and blood-stained clothes from his residence. These exhibits were subsequently subjected to forensic examination.
15) The court considers the following as aggravating circumstances. First, a human life was unlawfully lost. Second, the offence was committed using a dangerous weapon, namely a knife. Third, the attack appears to have been motivated by jealousy and resulted in fatal injuries being inflicted upon the deceased. The sanctity of human life is protected under Article 26 of the Constitution, and any unlawful deprivation of life must attract an appropriate penal sanction.
16) The pre-bail report discloses a previous conviction for having narcotic drugs. He was awarded a deterrence sentence, which he served, though the period is not indicated. Thus, the accused is not a first offender as he has a previous criminal record.
17) Against those aggravating factors, the court has weighed several mitigating circumstances. He is a youthful offender aged only twenty-one years. He entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty, thereby saving judicial time and sparing witnesses and the deceased's family the emotional burden of a full trial.
18) The court has also considered that the accused is a single father of a young child, has a sickly mother who depends upon him, and has expressed genuine remorse for his actions. A plea of guilty indicates acceptance of responsibility and constitutes a significant mitigating factor.
19) The Court of Appeal in Bethwel Wilson Kibor v Republic [2009] eKLR observed that manslaughter encompasses a broad range of unlawful killings and that the sentence to be imposed depends on the peculiar circumstances of each case. The court must therefore strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
20) Having carefully weighed all the relevant considerations, this court is satisfied that a non-custodial sentence would not adequately meet the ends of justice. The offence resulted in the loss of life through a violent knife attack. A custodial sentence is therefore necessary to mark society's condemnation of the conduct, deter similar offences, and promote respect for the law.
21) At the same time, the court recognises the accused's youthfulness, his status as a previous offender is a scar on his record, his plea of guilty, his remorse, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court is persuaded that, in the circumstances, a sentence less than the statutory maximum is appropriate.
22) In the court's view, a sentence of ten (10) years' imprisonment properly balances the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case and sufficiently advances the objectives of sentencing.
C. SENTENCE
i. Consequently, the accused person, Jeremiah Lemayian, is hereby sentenced to ten (10) years' imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
ii. Pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR, the period spent in custody before sentence shall be taken into account. The sentence shall run from the date the accused was first remanded in custody in connection with this offence.
23) Right of appeal explained (22.8 2025).
24) It is so ordered .
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KILGORIS, THIS 2 ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
KILGORIS HCCRC NO. E007 OF 2025 Page 2 of 2