1. The accused person was charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap.63Laws of Kenya.
2. The particulars of the offence are that LINET KWAMBOKA on 3rd June, 2024 at Vumilia Estate in Donholm BuruBuru sub county within Nairobi County murdered THOMAS KAMBOI MOSE.
3. The accused person entered into a plea Agreement with the state and had the charge of Murder reduced to Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal code.
4. The prosecution presented the Plea Agreement dated 23rd February 2026
and urged the court to adopt the same as part of the record of the court. The accused person confirmed to the court that she had voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and that she understood that she was waiving her right to a full trial.
5. The accused further confirmed that she was advised by her counsel before she appended her signature to the agreement.
6. The court adopted the same, read out the Manslaughter information to the accused and she stated; “ Ni ukweli nilimuua. Ni yeye alianza vitakwa kunidunga kisu kwa kichwa’’. Translated to mean it is true that i killed him. He is the one who started the fight by stabbing me on the head.
7. The court entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Manslaughter Contratry to Section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal code.
8. The prosecution counsel read out the facts to the accused as follows;-
a). Thomas Kamboi Mose (deceased) and the accused person LINET KWAMBOKA ANGEL were husband and wife residence of Vumila estate in Dolhom area. They were blessed with four children and at the time of the incident the couple were expecting their fifth born child. The accused person owned and operated a hotel known as Sinai which was located at Mukuru Kwa Njengs Area.
b). On 31st May 2024 the deceased passed by the hotel at around 10:00pm and requested the accused person of their house keys as he was proceeding to their house. When he received the keys, the accused requested him to carry some two tins of maize flour that she had to ease the burden as she was expectant and tired. The deceased declined the request and left.
c). At around 11:00 pm the accused was still at the hotel, when she received a call from the deceased who informed her, that he was at Tassia area drinking. At around 12 midnight the accused called the deceased and informed him that she was done with her daily hotel operations and was she was proceeding to their house.
d). When the accused got their house, she found the deceased had not arrived and the door to their house was locked and she could not access the house. She decided to call him and after the decease answered he handed the phone to unknown woman to talk to her.
e). The accused hanged up and after few attempts to call deceased he finally answered and informed the accused to stop disturbing him. The accused was outside her house until 1:30am when the deceased returned appearing drunk.
f). When they got into the house the accused inquired where the deceased had been keeping her outside their house for that long cold and knowing she was expectant.
g). The deceased allegedly picked a knife at this point and stabbed the accused person on the head and on the lips which made the accused person really agitated and they got into a fight where that accused grabbed the knife from the deceased and stabbed him four times. One stab on his left thigh, right arm, right thigh and left side of his abdomen.
h). The deceased started bleeding profusely and due to the comotion that had ensued it attracted the attention of the neighbors who alerted their landlord Peter Kamau, who came and found the deceased bleeding and lying near the gate. There was an angry crowd that wanted the couple to vacate the premises.
i). The landlord calmed the crowd and called an uber and took the deceased and accused and they headed to Savannah Police Post where they referred to report the matter at Buruburu Police Station where the landlord made the report and the accused was arrested. The deceased had carried the knife that had blood and handed it over to the police.
j). The deceased was rushed to Braza Medicare Clinic where he was attended to. At around midnight on 1st July,2024 the deceased complained of severe stomach pains and that he was feeling cold. He was referred to Mama Lucy Hospital where he was taken, treated and discharged on 2nd July,2024 morning.
k). The deceased brother Mose Okero Dismas took him to his house Mkuru kwa Njenga to monitor him. While in his brother's house the deceased condition worsed prompting the brother to seek assistance from one his friend John Misori and his mother Pauline Moraa.
l). At around 6:20am now 3rd July 2024 John arrived at the stage which was 100meters from the house. When the deceased brother went to get him at the said stage and upon returning they found the deceased has passed on.
n). The brother reported the matter at Njenga police Post. The body was transferred to Mama Lucy Hospital Mortuary awaiting postmortem.
o). The post mortem was conducted and the pathologist opinion was that cause of death was peritonitis due to penetrating stab wound.
p). The accused person was arraigned before the Makadara Court on 5th June 2024, for a miscellaneous file. The accused was later arraigned before Milimani High court to answer to one count of murder contrary to sec 203 as read with sec 204 of the penal code.
q). The accused was taken for mental assessment and assessed to be fit to stand trial on and took plea on 17th July 2024.
9. The accused person admitted the facts as being true and correct.
10. In mitigation, the accused person through counsel stated that she was a first offender and that she was remorseful.
11. She went on to say that she is a mother of five children and four of the children are school going.
12. The accused person had a toddler in her hands and she stated that the child had not been born by the time she committed the offence.
13. She was heavily pregnant the time of the offence and she urged the court to consider the best interests of the children of the marriage.
14. Further, the court was told that the accused is of good character and that she has maintained a good relationship with deceased’s family. She had tried reconciliation with the family of the deceased and that there is progress in that regard.
15. The accused’s father passed on when the matter was still under discussion. She seeks forgiveness from the deceased’s family. She prayed for a non- custodial sentence.
16. The accused said she was ready to serve as a role model and added that when she was out on bail, she did abide by the directions of the court and added that if she gets a non -custodial sentence she would continue to be obedient. She therefore sought leniency from the court.
17. Counsel for the accused suggested that if the court was to sentence her to a prison term the same should not 2-3 years.
18. The court has taken into account the facts of the matter as well as the mitigating circumstances stated by counsel fort the accused.
19. The court notes that the deceased person was the author of his own misfortune. He conducted himself so selfishly that he did not appear to care about the state of the accused person who was at the material time heavily pregnant.
20. The deceased’s action of keeping the accused in the cold until the wee hours of the morning in her state was highly provocative and insensitive. The facts clearly indicate that the fight between the two was trigger\ed by the deceased thus he invited his own death.
21. Although, the accused person was not justified in stabbing the deceased 4 times it is understandable that given her health state at the time of the incident, one would expect her to have been easy to anger. The deceased ought to have been more careful in the manner he handled the accused.
22. The Sentencing guidelines prescribed by the court have some basic objectives that the sentence that the court imposes should be geared to achieve. The objectives include retribution and deterrence. However, the court must also remain alive to the social reality of what a prison term is likely to do to a family where one of the parents dies in the circumstances such as those surrounding the death of the deceased and the other parent who is the accused in this case, is confined in prison thus depriving the children parental love and care.
23. The accused person in this matter pleaded guilty to the charge. She must therefore reap some benefit from the fact of admission of guilt and her decision to take responsibility for the killing. The court appreciates that by accepting to plead guilty to the offence of manslaughter the accused has saved the court precious judicial time and resources that could have been expended in undertaking a prosecution that would eventually lead to a conviction for manslaughter.
24. The Sentencing guidelines at paragraph 4.8.20 of the Sentencing Policy Guidelines by the National Council on Administration of Justice, 2023, states that:
“Where courts are satisfied that it is safe to accept a plea of guilty, they should grant a discount after considering the appropriate sentence based on culpability and harm specific to the offence alongside other aggravating and mitigating features. Once the court has arrived at that sentence, a discount of up to one third of the sentence should be applied where the offender has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. Thereafter, e.g., where an offender has pleaded guilty just before, or during trial, a lesser reduction may be afforded.”
25. The offence of manslaughter attracts life imprisonment but that is only to be imposed in the rarest of cases where the circumstances are so aggravated to militate against any shorter term of imprisonment. As earlier on stated elsewhere in this case, the deceased provoked the assault leading to his death. The death was unfortunate and this court is minded to weigh the facts against the mitigating circumstances in arriving at a proper sentence.
26. In Republic v Muteria (Criminal Case E006 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 18764 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Sentence)
“However, the court must weigh these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence and the profound impact on the victim’s family.
11.A life has been tragically and violently lost. As held in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, while rehabilitation is a key objective of sentencing, the courts must also consider the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and protection of the community.
12.The circumstances of this offence—a fatal stabbing during an argument over a petty debt—reveal a resort to extreme and lethal violence. The use of a knife, regardless of its origin, turned a personal disagreement into a homicide. The court has noted the concerns raised by the community representatives regarding the accused’s return, as captured in the Pre-Sentence Report.
13.In light of the foregoing, a non-custodial sentence would, in the circumstances of this case, trivialise the loss of life and fail to meet the legitimate demands for justice.
14.The offence of manslaughter under Section 205 of the Penal Code prescribes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The court must impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the unlawful killing while giving due credit for the accused’s plea and personal circumstances.”
27. In the instant case, the court received a pre-sentence report dated 8 th May 2026 whereof the probation officer Ms. Salome Muthoni recommended the accused to be considered for a non -custodial sentence. However, taking into account that the accused stabbed the deceased 4 times that action calls for a sentence that would send message to her that no matter the degree of provocation one should not take the law into his own hands and inflict injuries that may result in the death of another.
28. Accordingly, this court is minded to impose a 3year custodial sentence against the accused person which shall be computed from the date of 1 st June 2024 and in computation of the term the prison authorities shall exclude the period that the accused person was on bail.
29. It is so ordered.
2. The particulars of the offence are that LINET KWAMBOKA on 3rd June, 2024 at Vumilia Estate in Donholm BuruBuru sub county within Nairobi County murdered THOMAS KAMBOI MOSE.
3. The accused person entered into a plea Agreement with the state and had the charge of Murder reduced to Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal code.
4. The prosecution presented the Plea Agreement dated 23rd February 2026
and urged the court to adopt the same as part of the record of the court. The accused person confirmed to the court that she had voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and that she understood that she was waiving her right to a full trial.
5. The accused further confirmed that she was advised by her counsel before she appended her signature to the agreement.
6. The court adopted the same, read out the Manslaughter information to the accused and she stated; “ Ni ukweli nilimuua. Ni yeye alianza vitakwa kunidunga kisu kwa kichwa’’. Translated to mean it is true that i killed him. He is the one who started the fight by stabbing me on the head.
7. The court entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Manslaughter Contratry to Section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal code.
8. The prosecution counsel read out the facts to the accused as follows;-
a). Thomas Kamboi Mose (deceased) and the accused person LINET KWAMBOKA ANGEL were husband and wife residence of Vumila estate in Dolhom area. They were blessed with four children and at the time of the incident the couple were expecting their fifth born child. The accused person owned and operated a hotel known as Sinai which was located at Mukuru Kwa Njengs Area.
b). On 31st May 2024 the deceased passed by the hotel at around 10:00pm and requested the accused person of their house keys as he was proceeding to their house. When he received the keys, the accused requested him to carry some two tins of maize flour that she had to ease the burden as she was expectant and tired. The deceased declined the request and left.
c). At around 11:00 pm the accused was still at the hotel, when she received a call from the deceased who informed her, that he was at Tassia area drinking. At around 12 midnight the accused called the deceased and informed him that she was done with her daily hotel operations and was she was proceeding to their house.
d). When the accused got their house, she found the deceased had not arrived and the door to their house was locked and she could not access the house. She decided to call him and after the decease answered he handed the phone to unknown woman to talk to her.
e). The accused hanged up and after few attempts to call deceased he finally answered and informed the accused to stop disturbing him. The accused was outside her house until 1:30am when the deceased returned appearing drunk.
f). When they got into the house the accused inquired where the deceased had been keeping her outside their house for that long cold and knowing she was expectant.
g). The deceased allegedly picked a knife at this point and stabbed the accused person on the head and on the lips which made the accused person really agitated and they got into a fight where that accused grabbed the knife from the deceased and stabbed him four times. One stab on his left thigh, right arm, right thigh and left side of his abdomen.
h). The deceased started bleeding profusely and due to the comotion that had ensued it attracted the attention of the neighbors who alerted their landlord Peter Kamau, who came and found the deceased bleeding and lying near the gate. There was an angry crowd that wanted the couple to vacate the premises.
i). The landlord calmed the crowd and called an uber and took the deceased and accused and they headed to Savannah Police Post where they referred to report the matter at Buruburu Police Station where the landlord made the report and the accused was arrested. The deceased had carried the knife that had blood and handed it over to the police.
j). The deceased was rushed to Braza Medicare Clinic where he was attended to. At around midnight on 1st July,2024 the deceased complained of severe stomach pains and that he was feeling cold. He was referred to Mama Lucy Hospital where he was taken, treated and discharged on 2nd July,2024 morning.
k). The deceased brother Mose Okero Dismas took him to his house Mkuru kwa Njenga to monitor him. While in his brother's house the deceased condition worsed prompting the brother to seek assistance from one his friend John Misori and his mother Pauline Moraa.
l). At around 6:20am now 3rd July 2024 John arrived at the stage which was 100meters from the house. When the deceased brother went to get him at the said stage and upon returning they found the deceased has passed on.
n). The brother reported the matter at Njenga police Post. The body was transferred to Mama Lucy Hospital Mortuary awaiting postmortem.
o). The post mortem was conducted and the pathologist opinion was that cause of death was peritonitis due to penetrating stab wound.
p). The accused person was arraigned before the Makadara Court on 5th June 2024, for a miscellaneous file. The accused was later arraigned before Milimani High court to answer to one count of murder contrary to sec 203 as read with sec 204 of the penal code.
q). The accused was taken for mental assessment and assessed to be fit to stand trial on and took plea on 17th July 2024.
9. The accused person admitted the facts as being true and correct.
10. In mitigation, the accused person through counsel stated that she was a first offender and that she was remorseful.
11. She went on to say that she is a mother of five children and four of the children are school going.
12. The accused person had a toddler in her hands and she stated that the child had not been born by the time she committed the offence.
13. She was heavily pregnant the time of the offence and she urged the court to consider the best interests of the children of the marriage.
14. Further, the court was told that the accused is of good character and that she has maintained a good relationship with deceased’s family. She had tried reconciliation with the family of the deceased and that there is progress in that regard.
15. The accused’s father passed on when the matter was still under discussion. She seeks forgiveness from the deceased’s family. She prayed for a non- custodial sentence.
16. The accused said she was ready to serve as a role model and added that when she was out on bail, she did abide by the directions of the court and added that if she gets a non -custodial sentence she would continue to be obedient. She therefore sought leniency from the court.
17. Counsel for the accused suggested that if the court was to sentence her to a prison term the same should not 2-3 years.
18. The court has taken into account the facts of the matter as well as the mitigating circumstances stated by counsel fort the accused.
19. The court notes that the deceased person was the author of his own misfortune. He conducted himself so selfishly that he did not appear to care about the state of the accused person who was at the material time heavily pregnant.
20. The deceased’s action of keeping the accused in the cold until the wee hours of the morning in her state was highly provocative and insensitive. The facts clearly indicate that the fight between the two was trigger\ed by the deceased thus he invited his own death.
21. Although, the accused person was not justified in stabbing the deceased 4 times it is understandable that given her health state at the time of the incident, one would expect her to have been easy to anger. The deceased ought to have been more careful in the manner he handled the accused.
22. The Sentencing guidelines prescribed by the court have some basic objectives that the sentence that the court imposes should be geared to achieve. The objectives include retribution and deterrence. However, the court must also remain alive to the social reality of what a prison term is likely to do to a family where one of the parents dies in the circumstances such as those surrounding the death of the deceased and the other parent who is the accused in this case, is confined in prison thus depriving the children parental love and care.
23. The accused person in this matter pleaded guilty to the charge. She must therefore reap some benefit from the fact of admission of guilt and her decision to take responsibility for the killing. The court appreciates that by accepting to plead guilty to the offence of manslaughter the accused has saved the court precious judicial time and resources that could have been expended in undertaking a prosecution that would eventually lead to a conviction for manslaughter.
24. The Sentencing guidelines at paragraph 4.8.20 of the Sentencing Policy Guidelines by the National Council on Administration of Justice, 2023, states that:
“Where courts are satisfied that it is safe to accept a plea of guilty, they should grant a discount after considering the appropriate sentence based on culpability and harm specific to the offence alongside other aggravating and mitigating features. Once the court has arrived at that sentence, a discount of up to one third of the sentence should be applied where the offender has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. Thereafter, e.g., where an offender has pleaded guilty just before, or during trial, a lesser reduction may be afforded.”
25. The offence of manslaughter attracts life imprisonment but that is only to be imposed in the rarest of cases where the circumstances are so aggravated to militate against any shorter term of imprisonment. As earlier on stated elsewhere in this case, the deceased provoked the assault leading to his death. The death was unfortunate and this court is minded to weigh the facts against the mitigating circumstances in arriving at a proper sentence.
26. In Republic v Muteria (Criminal Case E006 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 18764 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Sentence)
“However, the court must weigh these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence and the profound impact on the victim’s family.
11.A life has been tragically and violently lost. As held in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, while rehabilitation is a key objective of sentencing, the courts must also consider the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and protection of the community.
12.The circumstances of this offence—a fatal stabbing during an argument over a petty debt—reveal a resort to extreme and lethal violence. The use of a knife, regardless of its origin, turned a personal disagreement into a homicide. The court has noted the concerns raised by the community representatives regarding the accused’s return, as captured in the Pre-Sentence Report.
13.In light of the foregoing, a non-custodial sentence would, in the circumstances of this case, trivialise the loss of life and fail to meet the legitimate demands for justice.
14.The offence of manslaughter under Section 205 of the Penal Code prescribes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The court must impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the unlawful killing while giving due credit for the accused’s plea and personal circumstances.”
27. In the instant case, the court received a pre-sentence report dated 8 th May 2026 whereof the probation officer Ms. Salome Muthoni recommended the accused to be considered for a non -custodial sentence. However, taking into account that the accused stabbed the deceased 4 times that action calls for a sentence that would send message to her that no matter the degree of provocation one should not take the law into his own hands and inflict injuries that may result in the death of another.
28. Accordingly, this court is minded to impose a 3year custodial sentence against the accused person which shall be computed from the date of 1 st June 2024 and in computation of the term the prison authorities shall exclude the period that the accused person was on bail.
29. It is so ordered.