RULING ON SENTENCING
1. The Accused was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya) . Following negotiations, the Accused entered into a Plea Agreement with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the charge was reduced to Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code .
2. On 16 th July 2026, the Accused was convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of Manslaughter. The particulars of the offence are that on the night of 16 th March 2023, at Yaamin Estate in Mlolongo Township, Athi River Sub-County within Machakos County, the Accused unlawfully killed his son, Subhaan Mahmoud Sultan. This ruling is therefore on the appropriate sentence to be meted out on the Accused for the said offence.
3. In Kibet v Republic [2025] KEHC 17938 (KLR) , the court (Nyakundi J.,) held as follows:
The Superior Courts have delved into the issue of sentencing which is one of the core functions of trial Courts within our Criminal justice system. In the Fatuma Hassan Salo v Republic [2006] eKLR Makhandia J as he then was remarked; Thus, the court should be guided by evidence and sound legal principles when it comes to the arrival of its decision. He also stated that the court should put into consideration all the relevant factors and exclude the irrelevant factors. In addition, the Court in Peter M. Kariuki v Attorney General, [2016] eKLR also made the following observations; That a Court has been granted discretion in a manner that is both judicial and reasonable – not upon caprice or personal opinion.
4. The Sentencing Policy Guidelines , 2023 (“ Guidelines ”) provide a foundation and a reference point for Judges and Magistrates in exercising discretion. The Guidelines provide for a structured approach to be applied by a trial court in individualizing specific sentences befitting specific offences. Part V therein provides for a ten-step Guided Approach to Sentencing (GATS).
5. Step 1 is determining the sentencing rage. Section 205 provides that any person guilty of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. There is no mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for manslaughter as the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, giving the court wide discretion in determining the appropriate sentence based on the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender (see Republic v Kipngetich [2026] KEHC 7240 (KLR) ]
6. Step 2 is determining the level of seriousness and Step 2A provides for determining culpability. The circumstances of the offence, as presented in the Prosecution's summary of facts and admitted by the Accused in the Pre-Sentence Report by the Probation Officer reveal the offence arose from accumulated anger arising from persistent family disputes and financial frustrations. The Accused alleged that on the night of the incident, his children assaulted him, prompting him to report the matter at Mlolongo Police Station. Police officers escorted him home and advised him to rest and resolve the dispute the following day and immediately after the officers left, the Accused alleged his children assaulted him again. To scare them away, he picked up a kitchen knife and waved it around, during which the deceased sustained a fatal neck injury.
7. In assessing culpability, I find that the offence was not planned as it occurred spontaneously during a family dispute . A kitchen knife was used, but the Accused's intention was to scare, not to kill, the Accused was allegedly assaulted by his children prior to the incident and while the deceased was the Accused's son, this was not a case of abuse of a position of trust. I find that the Accused acted alone, there was no financial motive and the Accused did not attempt to conceal the offence.
8. Based on the “traffic lights” developed for purposes of GATS, I rate the Accused's culpability to be in the “Low” to “Medium” range. The offence was not premeditated, occurred in the context of a family dispute, and the Accused did not intend to cause death. However, the use of a weapon is what elevates the culpability beyond the lowest level.
9. Step 2B is determining harm and it is not in contest that the harm caused by this offence is immeasurable. The deceased was the Accused's first-born son, a human life has been lost, the victim's family which is the Accused's own family continues to experience emotional distress and trauma, the family has been torn apart and they have been forced to relocate from their residence due to the trauma associated with the incident. From the pre-sentencing report, the incident has had a ripple effect on the community, though the family was not well known to the local administration and the family has harbored bitterness and resentment towards the offender over the past three years. They continue to experience emotional distress and have struggled to come to terms with the loss and the incident has without doubt left a deep emotional wound. Prior to the incident, the Accused had not exhibited any malicious behavior and the family had lived harmoniously. In assessing harm, I find this to be in the “High” range as the loss of a child, in such tragic circumstances, represents harm of the gravest nature.
10. Step 3 is determining the bandwidth for sentence. Having assessed culpability as low to medium and harm as high, I refer to the sentencing matrix provided in the Guidelines which provides that the sentence falls within the “Amber” range. For an offence where the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, this would translate to a significant custodial sentence, but not at the highest end of the scale. The Accused was originally charged with murder, which indicates the gravity of the offence. However, the reduction of the charge to manslaughter, following a Plea Agreement, reflects the prosecution's assessment that the Accused's culpability is reduced.
11. Step 4 is considering additional information such as personal mitigation. The Pre-Sentence Report provides comprehensive information on the Accused's personal circumstances. The Accused is 59 years old, he is the only child of the late Mohamoud Ali Sultan and the late Sakina Sultan, he is married to Wahonda Begum and the union was blessed with four children, including the deceased, the family is of average socio-economic status and there is no known history of criminal behaviour or criminal predisposition within the family.The Accused completed his primary education and attained Grade II in KCSE in 1982 and he pursued Accounting and Business Administration at Mombasa Commercial College. He worked in various accounting, sales and management positions between 1987 and 2011. In 2011, he established Jeep Center in Nairobi's Industrial Area, dealing in motor vehicle importation, which he managed until his arrest and the business collapsed due to financial predicaments.
12. The Accused suffers from hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, and an enlarged prostate. He is on continuous medication for these conditions and the medication occasionally affects his memory due to the frequency of use. The prison administration confirmed he is receiving treatment for these conditions, mainly with support from his children and prior to his arrest, he had developed a habit of consuming alcohol and using sleeping pills after suffering financial losses occasioned by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Accused accepts responsibility for his actions and expresses deep remorse. He acknowledges he should have handled the situation more calmly, he undertakes to comply with any conditions the court may impose and hopes to rebuild his life while continuing to support his family. He is a first-time offender with no previous convictions and he was described as a person of good character and was well known in Syokimau and South C areas as a businessman with a positive reputation. He has demonstrated positive institutional adjustment, including serving as the Chairperson of Muslim inmates within the prison and has maintained contact with his children and a close friend who has supported him during remand. A close friend, Cassius De Souza, has confirmed his willingness to accommodate the offender and provide necessary support upon release. The friend will assist in securing accommodation near his residence in Kilimani, Nairobi and he will facilitate access to appropriate medical care and also help establish a means of earning a livelihood to support reintegration.
13. The family continues to experience emotional distress and trauma as they have indicated they prefer no direct association with the offender should he be considered for a non-custodial sentence. They do not oppose a non-custodial sentence, provided he resides away from them and they expressed willingness to meet and support him at a neutral location. They would support the idea of accommodation with a friend, provided the friend is committed to maintaining that arrangement.
14. Considering the aforementioned factors, I find that the Accused's plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity after the Plea Agreement is significant. This has saved judicial time and resources and has spared the family from the trauma of a full trial. The Guilty Plea also demonstrates acceptance of responsibility and remorse.
15. Step 5 is determining the sentence. Having determined the appropriate bandwidth as Amber and considered the mitigating and aggravating factors, I determine the starting point for sentence at ten (10) years imprisonment. This starting point reflects, the seriousness of the offence amounting to a loss of life, the Accused's reduced culpability that is lack of premeditation and provocation by the deceased and the harm caused to the family
16. Step 6 is applying any reduction for a guilty plea. The Accused pleaded guilty at the Plea Agreement stage. This represents a plea at the earliest opportunity, demonstrating acceptance of responsibility and saving court resources. I therefore apply a discount of one-third (1/3) for the guilty plea from the starting point of 10 years giving 6 years and 8 months. Step 7 is considering the totality of sentence. The Accused is convicted on a single count of Manslaughter and the principle of totality does not apply as there are no multiple counts to consider.
17. Step 8 is considering compensation and ancillary orders. I have considered whether to make a compensation order, however, the pre-sentencing report does not indicate that the family is seeking compensation. Given the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim was the Accused's own son, I do not find it appropriate to order compensation. The emotional and psychological impact on the family is immeasurable and cannot be adequately compensated through monetary means.
18. Step 9 is pronouncement and reasons and I have considered the principles and objectives of sentencing as outlined in the Guidelines which are Retribution: The sentence must reflect the community's condemnation of the unlawful taking of a human life; Deterrence: The sentence should deter others from resorting to violence, even in moments of provocation; Rehabilitation: The Accused is 59 years old, suffers from chronic medical conditions, and has expressed genuine remorse. His rehabilitation is possible; Reintegration: The Accused has a viable reintegration plan with support from a close friend; Restorative Justice: While complete restoration is impossible due to the loss of a life, the Accused's acceptance of responsibility is a step towards healing.
19. I note the following extract from the Kibet case (supra) , which emphasized that:
"A proper recrafted legal framework is needed to meet the challenging task of appropriate sentencing given the disparities on the various sanctions of what one considers to be the same offence with the prescribed sentence by the Legislature."
20. The court also observed that:
"The Maximum Prisons facilities in Kenya were designed to hold fewer people than they do at the moment. Apparently, the correctional facilities do not have adequate infrastructure to hold the additional population of inmates hence there is an urgent need to revisit the issue of sentencing regime in Kenya to avoid a catastrophe."
21. I have considered whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence. Clause 2.3.13 of the Guidelines provides "Where the option of a non-custodial sentence is available, a custodial sentence should be reserved for cases where the offence is so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified." This is a serious offence involving the loss of life, however, the unique circumstances of this case, including the Accused's age, his chronic medical conditions requiring continuous treatment, the absence of previous criminal history , the genuine remorse expressed, the provocation preceding the incident, the family's non-opposition to a non-custodial sentence and the viable reintegration plan compel me to consider whether a non-custodial sentence would serve the interests of justice.
22. The Probation Officer's Report concludes: "In view of the offender's acceptance of responsibility, demonstrated remorse, lack of previous criminal history, positive institutional conduct, available community support, structured reintegration plan and the absence of objection by the family to a non-custodial sentence, he is suitable for community rehabilitation ." The Report recommends a probation sentence.
23. While I am mindful that sentences for manslaughter must reflect the gravity of the offence, I am also guided by the rehabilitative principle of sentencing, which recognizes that punishment should fit the criminal and not merely the crime. Courts in Kenya now tend to hinge more towards deterrence of an offender than rehabilitation. I am of the view that in this case, the rehabilitative objective outweighs the deterrent and retributive objectives and I have considered the possibility of a suspended sentence under section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code , however, I find that probation is the more appropriate non-custodial sentence in this case, as it will provide structured supervision and rehabilitation.
24. Lastly, Step 10 is considering time spent in custody. The Accused was arrested on or about 16 th March 2023 and has been in custody since then. He has been in remand for approximately two (2) years and four (4) months from March 2023 to July 2025. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody and the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR) fortified this position. I therefore deduct the period of two years and four months from the custodial sentence meaning the remaining sentence is 4 years and 4 months
25. In any event and in conclusion, having carefully considered all the circumstances of this case, the Guidelines, the Pre-Sentence Report and the principles of sentencing, I am persuaded that a probationary non-custodial sentence is the most appropriate disposition in this case.
26. Accordingly, I now make the following orders:
1) The Accused, ABID HUSSEIN SULTAN, is hereby sentenced to PROBATION for a period of Three (3) years in accordance with section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act(Chapter 64 of the Laws of Kenya) .
2) The Probation Order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i. The Accused shall reside at the address provided to the Probation Officer and shall not change his residence without prior written approval of the Probation Officer and this Court.
ii. The Accused shall report to the assigned Probation Officer once every month or as directed by the Probation Officer for supervision and counselling.
iii. The Accused shall undergo counselling as directed by the Probation Officer, specifically on anger management and the effects of alcohol and drug abuse.
iv. The Accused shall seek and maintain regular medical care for his chronic health conditions as advised by his physician.
v. The Accused shall not possess or consume any alcoholic beverages or any illegal substances.
vi. The Accused shall not possess, transport, or control any weapon, explosive device, or firearm.
vii. The Accused shall demonstrate good behavior and shall remain arrest-free at all times during the probation period.
viii. The Accused shall comply with all court orders and directions of the Probation Officer.
ix. The Accused shall, within ninety (90) days of this order, establish a legitimate means of earning a livelihood and shall provide proof thereof to the Probation Officer.
x. The Accused shall not contact, visit, or harass any members of his family, including his children, except at neutral locations and with their consent, and shall respect their request for distance.
xi. The Accused shall keep the court informed of any change of address or telephone number within 24 hours of such change.
3) The Accused shall be placed under the supervision of the Probation and Aftercare Service (PACS) for the duration of the Probation Order.
4) The Accused is warned that any breach of the terms of this Probation Order will render him liable to be brought before this Court for sentencing for the original offence
5) The Accused is further warned that if he commits any offence during the operational period of this Probation Order, he will become liable to be sentenced for the original offence as well as the new offence.
6) The Accused is at liberty to apply for variation of the terms of this Probation Order upon demonstrating good cause.
7) The Accused is hereby informed of his right to appeal against this sentence to the Court of Appeal within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED at MACHAKOS this 31 st DAY OF JULY 2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. Mr. Kinyua for the Accused
2. Ms. Otieno holding brief for Mr. Mangare for the Republic
3. N/A for the Victims Family
4. Amos/Godfrey- Court Assistant
2 | Page
1. The Accused was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya) . Following negotiations, the Accused entered into a Plea Agreement with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the charge was reduced to Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code .
2. On 16 th July 2026, the Accused was convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of Manslaughter. The particulars of the offence are that on the night of 16 th March 2023, at Yaamin Estate in Mlolongo Township, Athi River Sub-County within Machakos County, the Accused unlawfully killed his son, Subhaan Mahmoud Sultan. This ruling is therefore on the appropriate sentence to be meted out on the Accused for the said offence.
3. In Kibet v Republic [2025] KEHC 17938 (KLR) , the court (Nyakundi J.,) held as follows:
The Superior Courts have delved into the issue of sentencing which is one of the core functions of trial Courts within our Criminal justice system. In the Fatuma Hassan Salo v Republic [2006] eKLR Makhandia J as he then was remarked; Thus, the court should be guided by evidence and sound legal principles when it comes to the arrival of its decision. He also stated that the court should put into consideration all the relevant factors and exclude the irrelevant factors. In addition, the Court in Peter M. Kariuki v Attorney General, [2016] eKLR also made the following observations; That a Court has been granted discretion in a manner that is both judicial and reasonable – not upon caprice or personal opinion.
4. The Sentencing Policy Guidelines , 2023 (“ Guidelines ”) provide a foundation and a reference point for Judges and Magistrates in exercising discretion. The Guidelines provide for a structured approach to be applied by a trial court in individualizing specific sentences befitting specific offences. Part V therein provides for a ten-step Guided Approach to Sentencing (GATS).
5. Step 1 is determining the sentencing rage. Section 205 provides that any person guilty of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. There is no mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for manslaughter as the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, giving the court wide discretion in determining the appropriate sentence based on the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender (see Republic v Kipngetich [2026] KEHC 7240 (KLR) ]
6. Step 2 is determining the level of seriousness and Step 2A provides for determining culpability. The circumstances of the offence, as presented in the Prosecution's summary of facts and admitted by the Accused in the Pre-Sentence Report by the Probation Officer reveal the offence arose from accumulated anger arising from persistent family disputes and financial frustrations. The Accused alleged that on the night of the incident, his children assaulted him, prompting him to report the matter at Mlolongo Police Station. Police officers escorted him home and advised him to rest and resolve the dispute the following day and immediately after the officers left, the Accused alleged his children assaulted him again. To scare them away, he picked up a kitchen knife and waved it around, during which the deceased sustained a fatal neck injury.
7. In assessing culpability, I find that the offence was not planned as it occurred spontaneously during a family dispute . A kitchen knife was used, but the Accused's intention was to scare, not to kill, the Accused was allegedly assaulted by his children prior to the incident and while the deceased was the Accused's son, this was not a case of abuse of a position of trust. I find that the Accused acted alone, there was no financial motive and the Accused did not attempt to conceal the offence.
8. Based on the “traffic lights” developed for purposes of GATS, I rate the Accused's culpability to be in the “Low” to “Medium” range. The offence was not premeditated, occurred in the context of a family dispute, and the Accused did not intend to cause death. However, the use of a weapon is what elevates the culpability beyond the lowest level.
9. Step 2B is determining harm and it is not in contest that the harm caused by this offence is immeasurable. The deceased was the Accused's first-born son, a human life has been lost, the victim's family which is the Accused's own family continues to experience emotional distress and trauma, the family has been torn apart and they have been forced to relocate from their residence due to the trauma associated with the incident. From the pre-sentencing report, the incident has had a ripple effect on the community, though the family was not well known to the local administration and the family has harbored bitterness and resentment towards the offender over the past three years. They continue to experience emotional distress and have struggled to come to terms with the loss and the incident has without doubt left a deep emotional wound. Prior to the incident, the Accused had not exhibited any malicious behavior and the family had lived harmoniously. In assessing harm, I find this to be in the “High” range as the loss of a child, in such tragic circumstances, represents harm of the gravest nature.
10. Step 3 is determining the bandwidth for sentence. Having assessed culpability as low to medium and harm as high, I refer to the sentencing matrix provided in the Guidelines which provides that the sentence falls within the “Amber” range. For an offence where the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, this would translate to a significant custodial sentence, but not at the highest end of the scale. The Accused was originally charged with murder, which indicates the gravity of the offence. However, the reduction of the charge to manslaughter, following a Plea Agreement, reflects the prosecution's assessment that the Accused's culpability is reduced.
11. Step 4 is considering additional information such as personal mitigation. The Pre-Sentence Report provides comprehensive information on the Accused's personal circumstances. The Accused is 59 years old, he is the only child of the late Mohamoud Ali Sultan and the late Sakina Sultan, he is married to Wahonda Begum and the union was blessed with four children, including the deceased, the family is of average socio-economic status and there is no known history of criminal behaviour or criminal predisposition within the family.The Accused completed his primary education and attained Grade II in KCSE in 1982 and he pursued Accounting and Business Administration at Mombasa Commercial College. He worked in various accounting, sales and management positions between 1987 and 2011. In 2011, he established Jeep Center in Nairobi's Industrial Area, dealing in motor vehicle importation, which he managed until his arrest and the business collapsed due to financial predicaments.
12. The Accused suffers from hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, and an enlarged prostate. He is on continuous medication for these conditions and the medication occasionally affects his memory due to the frequency of use. The prison administration confirmed he is receiving treatment for these conditions, mainly with support from his children and prior to his arrest, he had developed a habit of consuming alcohol and using sleeping pills after suffering financial losses occasioned by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Accused accepts responsibility for his actions and expresses deep remorse. He acknowledges he should have handled the situation more calmly, he undertakes to comply with any conditions the court may impose and hopes to rebuild his life while continuing to support his family. He is a first-time offender with no previous convictions and he was described as a person of good character and was well known in Syokimau and South C areas as a businessman with a positive reputation. He has demonstrated positive institutional adjustment, including serving as the Chairperson of Muslim inmates within the prison and has maintained contact with his children and a close friend who has supported him during remand. A close friend, Cassius De Souza, has confirmed his willingness to accommodate the offender and provide necessary support upon release. The friend will assist in securing accommodation near his residence in Kilimani, Nairobi and he will facilitate access to appropriate medical care and also help establish a means of earning a livelihood to support reintegration.
13. The family continues to experience emotional distress and trauma as they have indicated they prefer no direct association with the offender should he be considered for a non-custodial sentence. They do not oppose a non-custodial sentence, provided he resides away from them and they expressed willingness to meet and support him at a neutral location. They would support the idea of accommodation with a friend, provided the friend is committed to maintaining that arrangement.
14. Considering the aforementioned factors, I find that the Accused's plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity after the Plea Agreement is significant. This has saved judicial time and resources and has spared the family from the trauma of a full trial. The Guilty Plea also demonstrates acceptance of responsibility and remorse.
15. Step 5 is determining the sentence. Having determined the appropriate bandwidth as Amber and considered the mitigating and aggravating factors, I determine the starting point for sentence at ten (10) years imprisonment. This starting point reflects, the seriousness of the offence amounting to a loss of life, the Accused's reduced culpability that is lack of premeditation and provocation by the deceased and the harm caused to the family
16. Step 6 is applying any reduction for a guilty plea. The Accused pleaded guilty at the Plea Agreement stage. This represents a plea at the earliest opportunity, demonstrating acceptance of responsibility and saving court resources. I therefore apply a discount of one-third (1/3) for the guilty plea from the starting point of 10 years giving 6 years and 8 months. Step 7 is considering the totality of sentence. The Accused is convicted on a single count of Manslaughter and the principle of totality does not apply as there are no multiple counts to consider.
17. Step 8 is considering compensation and ancillary orders. I have considered whether to make a compensation order, however, the pre-sentencing report does not indicate that the family is seeking compensation. Given the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim was the Accused's own son, I do not find it appropriate to order compensation. The emotional and psychological impact on the family is immeasurable and cannot be adequately compensated through monetary means.
18. Step 9 is pronouncement and reasons and I have considered the principles and objectives of sentencing as outlined in the Guidelines which are Retribution: The sentence must reflect the community's condemnation of the unlawful taking of a human life; Deterrence: The sentence should deter others from resorting to violence, even in moments of provocation; Rehabilitation: The Accused is 59 years old, suffers from chronic medical conditions, and has expressed genuine remorse. His rehabilitation is possible; Reintegration: The Accused has a viable reintegration plan with support from a close friend; Restorative Justice: While complete restoration is impossible due to the loss of a life, the Accused's acceptance of responsibility is a step towards healing.
19. I note the following extract from the Kibet case (supra) , which emphasized that:
"A proper recrafted legal framework is needed to meet the challenging task of appropriate sentencing given the disparities on the various sanctions of what one considers to be the same offence with the prescribed sentence by the Legislature."
20. The court also observed that:
"The Maximum Prisons facilities in Kenya were designed to hold fewer people than they do at the moment. Apparently, the correctional facilities do not have adequate infrastructure to hold the additional population of inmates hence there is an urgent need to revisit the issue of sentencing regime in Kenya to avoid a catastrophe."
21. I have considered whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence. Clause 2.3.13 of the Guidelines provides "Where the option of a non-custodial sentence is available, a custodial sentence should be reserved for cases where the offence is so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified." This is a serious offence involving the loss of life, however, the unique circumstances of this case, including the Accused's age, his chronic medical conditions requiring continuous treatment, the absence of previous criminal history , the genuine remorse expressed, the provocation preceding the incident, the family's non-opposition to a non-custodial sentence and the viable reintegration plan compel me to consider whether a non-custodial sentence would serve the interests of justice.
22. The Probation Officer's Report concludes: "In view of the offender's acceptance of responsibility, demonstrated remorse, lack of previous criminal history, positive institutional conduct, available community support, structured reintegration plan and the absence of objection by the family to a non-custodial sentence, he is suitable for community rehabilitation ." The Report recommends a probation sentence.
23. While I am mindful that sentences for manslaughter must reflect the gravity of the offence, I am also guided by the rehabilitative principle of sentencing, which recognizes that punishment should fit the criminal and not merely the crime. Courts in Kenya now tend to hinge more towards deterrence of an offender than rehabilitation. I am of the view that in this case, the rehabilitative objective outweighs the deterrent and retributive objectives and I have considered the possibility of a suspended sentence under section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code , however, I find that probation is the more appropriate non-custodial sentence in this case, as it will provide structured supervision and rehabilitation.
24. Lastly, Step 10 is considering time spent in custody. The Accused was arrested on or about 16 th March 2023 and has been in custody since then. He has been in remand for approximately two (2) years and four (4) months from March 2023 to July 2025. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody and the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR) fortified this position. I therefore deduct the period of two years and four months from the custodial sentence meaning the remaining sentence is 4 years and 4 months
25. In any event and in conclusion, having carefully considered all the circumstances of this case, the Guidelines, the Pre-Sentence Report and the principles of sentencing, I am persuaded that a probationary non-custodial sentence is the most appropriate disposition in this case.
26. Accordingly, I now make the following orders:
1) The Accused, ABID HUSSEIN SULTAN, is hereby sentenced to PROBATION for a period of Three (3) years in accordance with section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act(Chapter 64 of the Laws of Kenya) .
2) The Probation Order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i. The Accused shall reside at the address provided to the Probation Officer and shall not change his residence without prior written approval of the Probation Officer and this Court.
ii. The Accused shall report to the assigned Probation Officer once every month or as directed by the Probation Officer for supervision and counselling.
iii. The Accused shall undergo counselling as directed by the Probation Officer, specifically on anger management and the effects of alcohol and drug abuse.
iv. The Accused shall seek and maintain regular medical care for his chronic health conditions as advised by his physician.
v. The Accused shall not possess or consume any alcoholic beverages or any illegal substances.
vi. The Accused shall not possess, transport, or control any weapon, explosive device, or firearm.
vii. The Accused shall demonstrate good behavior and shall remain arrest-free at all times during the probation period.
viii. The Accused shall comply with all court orders and directions of the Probation Officer.
ix. The Accused shall, within ninety (90) days of this order, establish a legitimate means of earning a livelihood and shall provide proof thereof to the Probation Officer.
x. The Accused shall not contact, visit, or harass any members of his family, including his children, except at neutral locations and with their consent, and shall respect their request for distance.
xi. The Accused shall keep the court informed of any change of address or telephone number within 24 hours of such change.
3) The Accused shall be placed under the supervision of the Probation and Aftercare Service (PACS) for the duration of the Probation Order.
4) The Accused is warned that any breach of the terms of this Probation Order will render him liable to be brought before this Court for sentencing for the original offence
5) The Accused is further warned that if he commits any offence during the operational period of this Probation Order, he will become liable to be sentenced for the original offence as well as the new offence.
6) The Accused is at liberty to apply for variation of the terms of this Probation Order upon demonstrating good cause.
7) The Accused is hereby informed of his right to appeal against this sentence to the Court of Appeal within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED at MACHAKOS this 31 st DAY OF JULY 2026
............................................................................
J W W MONGARE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
1. Mr. Kinyua for the Accused
2. Ms. Otieno holding brief for Mr. Mangare for the Republic
3. N/A for the Victims Family
4. Amos/Godfrey- Court Assistant
2 | Page