REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDAMA RAVINE
HCCR CASE NO.52 OF 2023
REPUBLIC ..…………………………………….………….. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
CHEPKWONY ALFAYO KIPKURUI……………….….…….. ACCUSED
CHEPKWONY ALFAYO KIPKURUI was charged with murder c/s 203 as read with s, 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on the 9 th January 2017 at Tolmo Village Koibatek Subcounty within Baringo County he murdered Pamela Anita Ingoshe.
He pleaded not guilty. The matter was heard by the Hon Ng’etich J (as she then was) . By a judgment dated 12 th November 2025 the accused was found guilty and convicted of the offence of murder.
It has fallen upon me to sentence him.
The basis for the sentencing hearing cannot be overemphasized. This is evident from the first edition of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines where the then Chief Justice made this observation;
Sentencing has been a problematic area in the administration of justice. It is one of those issues that has constantly given the Judiciary a bad name – and deservedly so. Sometimes out rightly absurd, disproportionate and inconsistent sentences have been handed down in criminal cases. This has fuelled public perception that the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing is a whimsical exercise by judicial officers. [1]
The Hon Justice Msagha Mbogholi stated this in the same guidelines
Reaching a fair decision in sentencing is neither an easy nor straightforward process; several considerations come into play. While sentences are defined by law, the measure of what is an appropriate sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of judges and magistrates. As Justice McArdle is famously quoted saying, “Anyone can try a case. That is as easy as falling off a log. The difficulty comes in knowing what to do with a man once he has been found guilty.” Sentencing is as important as all other aspects of a criminal trial. Sentencing in Kenya has been marked by instances of unwarranted disparities, lack of certainty and transparency in decisions, disproportionate sentences and lack of uniformity in sentences with respect to same offences committed under similar circumstances. In other respects, lack of sufficient public education has contributed to misconceptions about sentencing, especially the undue focus on custodial sentences to the exclusion of other appropriate forms of sentences. [2]
Sentencing must be based on the principles of fairness, justice, proportionality and commitment to public safety.
The Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 state the following with regard to murder:
5.2.2 The harm caused by such an offence is immeasurable. The sentence is not a measure of the value placed on the life of the victim. Therefore, the assessment of aggravating and mitigating features relating to the offence focusses on culpability. However, the victims’ family may wish to make a statement to the court about the impact of the offence.
5.2.3 In addition to the generic features contained in the GATS, (Guided Approach to Sentencing) features particularly relevant to murder may include but are not limited to:
5.2.4 Aggravating Factors in Murder Cases:
A significant degree of planning or premeditation.
The mental or physical suffering inflicted upon the victim before death.
Factors such as the type of weapon used, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment prior to death will be relevant.
The use of duress or threats to enable the offence to take place.
The vulnerability of the victim e.g., due to age or disability.
The fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty.
Multiple victims or multiple perpetrators.
Where the offence involved an abuse of trust.
The relationship between the victim and the accused should be carefully considered.
Offence was motivated by, or there was demonstrated hostility to the victim based on his or her race, gender, sex, sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation), pregnancy, marital status (so called ‘honour killings’ for example), health status (e.g., murder occurred because of the HIV status of the victim, or albinism), ethnicity, culture, dress, language, birth, or religious orientation (or presumed religious orientation).
A history of assaults, threats, or coercion upon the same victim. Absence of self-defence or provocation. The offence involved deliberate drugging or stupefying of the victim.
Proven abduction or kidnapping of the victim before the murder was committed. Where a demand for ransom was made, signifying a financial motive.
Concealing, destroying, or dismembering the body.
Where the murder was conducted in furtherance of a ritualistic practice such as witchcraft.
5.2.5 Mitigating features relating to murder might include:
Lack of premeditation.
The offender suffered from a mental disorder or mental disability which lowered his degree of blame. In a case of joint enterprise, the role the offender played may be lower than his co-accused. For example, in the resentencing of the Applicants in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & 6 others v Director of Public Prosecution [2019] eKLR the Judge categorised the offenders into four categories based on their culpability. The first category involved the architects of an offence e.g., those who financed the killing, the second category involves offenders who ensnared the deceased into his death, the third category is the henchmen, those who carried out the brutal killing and the fourth category involves offenders involved in the cover up of the offence by attempting to silence witnesses. The Judge sentenced the third category with the highest term of imprisonment and graduated the term down for the other categories.
That the offender was provoked.
That the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence.
The age of the offender.
I have read through the Judgement and the Presentence Report dated 20 th November 2025.
I conducted a sentence hearing during which the state represented by Ms. Omari and the convict represented by Ms. Barasa addressed the court.
Ms. Omari relied on Muruatetu 1 where the Supreme Court held that the death sentence was not unconstitutional and urged the court to consider the ultimate sentence to the Convict.
She submitted that he was 1 st offender 32 years old. The he committed this offence intentionally pre-meditated as there was long standing dispute between his family and that of deceased wherein the husband of the deceased had bought land from the father of the convict.
The accused person committed the offence due to his inability to control negative emotions after an altercation. That he needs rehabilitation. That the Deceased met her death in one of the most painful ways. That the Post mortem PExh.6 shows that cause of death was severance of the mid brain and hemorrhage due to sharp cut injuries. Injuries on head, deep cut wound on head, shoulder, face.
Her right hand wrist was completely chopped off. Injury inflicted using a sharp panga. That the injuries demonstrated that the convicts intention was to kill. That the deceased left 5 children who have to grow up without the love of a mother and that as at 2025, 4 of the children were being taken care of by step mother as they are still dependents.
Ms. Omari submitted further that due to rise of cases of killings due to land disputes, there was need for a deterrent on the same and a strong message that there are ways of sorting out disputes and that human life is sacred. She submitted that the convict be sentenced to life imprisonment.
Ms. Barasah submitted that the convict Chepkwony Alfayo Chepkurui was a 32 year old, family man, the sole bread winner, He went to school, attained C+ married to one wife, with 2 children who were of tender age 10 years and 1.3 years old. That the convict’s wife has breast cancer, leaving him as the sole tegemeo for the family.
That he was engaged in farming, selling of livestock and supporting even the extended family, children of his uncle. That at 32 years old he can be useful as member of the society
It was submitted that the convict is very remorseful.
That he has shown his remorse as, the families met, the convict returned the purchase price of the land in dispute so that the family of the deceased could relocate. That the pre -sentence was favorable and his family was not opposed to a lenient sentence.
Ms. Barasah cited Mohamed Abdi Mohamed [2018] eKLR submitting that in that case the court considered reconciliation between the families and gave a lenient sentence. she urged the court to consider the that the convict was 1 st offender, to consider the favorable Pre sent report and the reconciliation. and give a lenient sentence non-custodial sentence.
The convict on his part added that
Nimerekebika ya kutosha.
Nikienda Kenya nitaelimisha wenzangu kuwa wawe wazuri naomba msamaha.
In her rejoinder Ms. Omari submitted that a life was lost, somebody’s mother was not coming back. That there was no reconciliation, it was only about a report of where the husband of the deceased was going to live. That there was no discussion about the death of the deceased that that is why there was report of moving from the land, so that he would move from the area.
There was no reconciliation over the death of the deceased.
I have set out the factors to be considered when considering the sentence.
In this case the severity of the injuries on the deceased present the case of a person cutting another as if they were cutting fire wood. The deceased had a cut transecting through the nape of the neck to the angle of the mandibles; transecting the mid brain; 10 cm deep cut wound extending through mid-left shoulder to the angle of the scapula; complete amputation of the right wrist, lacerated both knees. Cause of death: severance of the midbrain and hemorrhage due to sharp cut injuries.
The severance of the wrist indicates that the deceased tried to defend herself with her hand. The violence of the panga cuts is evident in the depth of the cut wounds. He severed her mid brain!
This attack was preceded by threats in the home of the deceased. The attack was witnessed by minors, who will suffer the trauma of what they saw that day for rest of their lives. True, the children of the convict are also victims of his crime and may be they too will never understand why he did what he did.
The refund of the purchase price for the land cannot be considered restitution for the offence committed by the convict. It was bound to happen.
The aggravating circumstances are so much that the convict would deserve the sentence of death.
He is sentenced to 45 years imprisonment with effect from the date of his conviction.
Right of Appeal 14 days .
Sentence rendered virtually , dated, signed this 22 nd May 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Right of Appeal 14 days
CA Karanja
Accused
Ms Barasah for accused
Ms Omari for stated
FOOTNOTES
[1] Sentencing Policy Guidelines Hon Chief Justice Willy Mutunga
[2] Chairperson - Judicial Taskforce on Sentencing
Sentence Ruling HCCRC E052 of 2023 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDAMA RAVINE
HCCR CASE NO.52 OF 2023
REPUBLIC ..…………………………………….………….. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
CHEPKWONY ALFAYO KIPKURUI……………….….…….. ACCUSED
CHEPKWONY ALFAYO KIPKURUI was charged with murder c/s 203 as read with s, 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on the 9 th January 2017 at Tolmo Village Koibatek Subcounty within Baringo County he murdered Pamela Anita Ingoshe.
He pleaded not guilty. The matter was heard by the Hon Ng’etich J (as she then was) . By a judgment dated 12 th November 2025 the accused was found guilty and convicted of the offence of murder.
It has fallen upon me to sentence him.
The basis for the sentencing hearing cannot be overemphasized. This is evident from the first edition of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines where the then Chief Justice made this observation;
Sentencing has been a problematic area in the administration of justice. It is one of those issues that has constantly given the Judiciary a bad name – and deservedly so. Sometimes out rightly absurd, disproportionate and inconsistent sentences have been handed down in criminal cases. This has fuelled public perception that the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing is a whimsical exercise by judicial officers. [1]
The Hon Justice Msagha Mbogholi stated this in the same guidelines
Reaching a fair decision in sentencing is neither an easy nor straightforward process; several considerations come into play. While sentences are defined by law, the measure of what is an appropriate sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of judges and magistrates. As Justice McArdle is famously quoted saying, “Anyone can try a case. That is as easy as falling off a log. The difficulty comes in knowing what to do with a man once he has been found guilty.” Sentencing is as important as all other aspects of a criminal trial. Sentencing in Kenya has been marked by instances of unwarranted disparities, lack of certainty and transparency in decisions, disproportionate sentences and lack of uniformity in sentences with respect to same offences committed under similar circumstances. In other respects, lack of sufficient public education has contributed to misconceptions about sentencing, especially the undue focus on custodial sentences to the exclusion of other appropriate forms of sentences. [2]
Sentencing must be based on the principles of fairness, justice, proportionality and commitment to public safety.
The Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 state the following with regard to murder:
5.2.2 The harm caused by such an offence is immeasurable. The sentence is not a measure of the value placed on the life of the victim. Therefore, the assessment of aggravating and mitigating features relating to the offence focusses on culpability. However, the victims’ family may wish to make a statement to the court about the impact of the offence.
5.2.3 In addition to the generic features contained in the GATS, (Guided Approach to Sentencing) features particularly relevant to murder may include but are not limited to:
5.2.4 Aggravating Factors in Murder Cases:
A significant degree of planning or premeditation.
The mental or physical suffering inflicted upon the victim before death.
Factors such as the type of weapon used, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment prior to death will be relevant.
The use of duress or threats to enable the offence to take place.
The vulnerability of the victim e.g., due to age or disability.
The fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty.
Multiple victims or multiple perpetrators.
Where the offence involved an abuse of trust.
The relationship between the victim and the accused should be carefully considered.
Offence was motivated by, or there was demonstrated hostility to the victim based on his or her race, gender, sex, sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation), pregnancy, marital status (so called ‘honour killings’ for example), health status (e.g., murder occurred because of the HIV status of the victim, or albinism), ethnicity, culture, dress, language, birth, or religious orientation (or presumed religious orientation).
A history of assaults, threats, or coercion upon the same victim. Absence of self-defence or provocation. The offence involved deliberate drugging or stupefying of the victim.
Proven abduction or kidnapping of the victim before the murder was committed. Where a demand for ransom was made, signifying a financial motive.
Concealing, destroying, or dismembering the body.
Where the murder was conducted in furtherance of a ritualistic practice such as witchcraft.
5.2.5 Mitigating features relating to murder might include:
Lack of premeditation.
The offender suffered from a mental disorder or mental disability which lowered his degree of blame. In a case of joint enterprise, the role the offender played may be lower than his co-accused. For example, in the resentencing of the Applicants in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & 6 others v Director of Public Prosecution [2019] eKLR the Judge categorised the offenders into four categories based on their culpability. The first category involved the architects of an offence e.g., those who financed the killing, the second category involves offenders who ensnared the deceased into his death, the third category is the henchmen, those who carried out the brutal killing and the fourth category involves offenders involved in the cover up of the offence by attempting to silence witnesses. The Judge sentenced the third category with the highest term of imprisonment and graduated the term down for the other categories.
That the offender was provoked.
That the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence.
The age of the offender.
I have read through the Judgement and the Presentence Report dated 20 th November 2025.
I conducted a sentence hearing during which the state represented by Ms. Omari and the convict represented by Ms. Barasa addressed the court.
Ms. Omari relied on Muruatetu 1 where the Supreme Court held that the death sentence was not unconstitutional and urged the court to consider the ultimate sentence to the Convict.
She submitted that he was 1 st offender 32 years old. The he committed this offence intentionally pre-meditated as there was long standing dispute between his family and that of deceased wherein the husband of the deceased had bought land from the father of the convict.
The accused person committed the offence due to his inability to control negative emotions after an altercation. That he needs rehabilitation. That the Deceased met her death in one of the most painful ways. That the Post mortem PExh.6 shows that cause of death was severance of the mid brain and hemorrhage due to sharp cut injuries. Injuries on head, deep cut wound on head, shoulder, face.
Her right hand wrist was completely chopped off. Injury inflicted using a sharp panga. That the injuries demonstrated that the convicts intention was to kill. That the deceased left 5 children who have to grow up without the love of a mother and that as at 2025, 4 of the children were being taken care of by step mother as they are still dependents.
Ms. Omari submitted further that due to rise of cases of killings due to land disputes, there was need for a deterrent on the same and a strong message that there are ways of sorting out disputes and that human life is sacred. She submitted that the convict be sentenced to life imprisonment.
Ms. Barasah submitted that the convict Chepkwony Alfayo Chepkurui was a 32 year old, family man, the sole bread winner, He went to school, attained C+ married to one wife, with 2 children who were of tender age 10 years and 1.3 years old. That the convict’s wife has breast cancer, leaving him as the sole tegemeo for the family.
That he was engaged in farming, selling of livestock and supporting even the extended family, children of his uncle. That at 32 years old he can be useful as member of the society
It was submitted that the convict is very remorseful.
That he has shown his remorse as, the families met, the convict returned the purchase price of the land in dispute so that the family of the deceased could relocate. That the pre -sentence was favorable and his family was not opposed to a lenient sentence.
Ms. Barasah cited Mohamed Abdi Mohamed [2018] eKLR submitting that in that case the court considered reconciliation between the families and gave a lenient sentence. she urged the court to consider the that the convict was 1 st offender, to consider the favorable Pre sent report and the reconciliation. and give a lenient sentence non-custodial sentence.
The convict on his part added that
Nimerekebika ya kutosha.
Nikienda Kenya nitaelimisha wenzangu kuwa wawe wazuri naomba msamaha.
In her rejoinder Ms. Omari submitted that a life was lost, somebody’s mother was not coming back. That there was no reconciliation, it was only about a report of where the husband of the deceased was going to live. That there was no discussion about the death of the deceased that that is why there was report of moving from the land, so that he would move from the area.
There was no reconciliation over the death of the deceased.
I have set out the factors to be considered when considering the sentence.
In this case the severity of the injuries on the deceased present the case of a person cutting another as if they were cutting fire wood. The deceased had a cut transecting through the nape of the neck to the angle of the mandibles; transecting the mid brain; 10 cm deep cut wound extending through mid-left shoulder to the angle of the scapula; complete amputation of the right wrist, lacerated both knees. Cause of death: severance of the midbrain and hemorrhage due to sharp cut injuries.
The severance of the wrist indicates that the deceased tried to defend herself with her hand. The violence of the panga cuts is evident in the depth of the cut wounds. He severed her mid brain!
This attack was preceded by threats in the home of the deceased. The attack was witnessed by minors, who will suffer the trauma of what they saw that day for rest of their lives. True, the children of the convict are also victims of his crime and may be they too will never understand why he did what he did.
The refund of the purchase price for the land cannot be considered restitution for the offence committed by the convict. It was bound to happen.
The aggravating circumstances are so much that the convict would deserve the sentence of death.
He is sentenced to 45 years imprisonment with effect from the date of his conviction.
Right of Appeal 14 days .
Sentence rendered virtually , dated, signed this 22 nd May 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Right of Appeal 14 days
CA Karanja
Accused
Ms Barasah for accused
Ms Omari for stated
FOOTNOTES
[1] Sentencing Policy Guidelines Hon Chief Justice Willy Mutunga
[2] Chairperson - Judicial Taskforce on Sentencing
Sentence Ruling HCCRC E052 of 2023 Page 2 of 2