REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E019 OF 2022
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
COLLINS KIPNGETICH……………………………………………………. ACCUSED
SENTENCING
22/05/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused person, COLLINS KIPNGETICH, was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on 23rd October 2022 at Inter-Farm Lodgings, Mulot Trading Centre, Narok West Sub-County within Narok County, he murdered one WINNY CHEPNGETICH.
2) Subsequently, the parties entered into a Plea Agreement dated 27th October 2025 pursuant to Sections 137A–137O of the Criminal Procedure Code. Following the plea bargain arrangement, the charge of murder was substituted with the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202(1) as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
3) The accused pleaded guilty to the substituted charge on 29th October 2025. The facts contained in paragraph 9 onwards of the Plea Agreement were read and explained to him, and he admitted them as true. The court thereafter convicted him on his own plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter.
4) The court has considered the mitigation by counsel for the accused, the submissions by the prosecution, the Plea Agreement dated 27th October 2025, and the Pre-Sentence Report dated 17th March 2026 prepared by the Probation and After Care Service.
B. MITIGATION AND SENTENCING
5) Learned counsel for the accused urged the court to exercise leniency and submitted that the accused was a first offender with no previous criminal record. The prosecution equally confirmed that the accused had no prior convictions and could be treated as a first offender.
6) Counsel further submitted that the accused was only 20 years old at the time of the offence and that he had a difficult educational background, having only completed primary education. It was submitted that he came from a humble background and was raised by a single mother.
7) The defence emphasized that the offence was not premeditated and that no weapon was used. According to the facts in the Plea Agreement and the Pre-Sentence Report, the incident arose spontaneously in the course of a heated argument while both the accused and the deceased were intoxicated. The accused struck the deceased with the back of his hand, causing her to fall.
8) The court was urged to consider that the accused expressed remorse and accepted responsibility through plea bargaining, thereby saving valuable judicial time. Counsel further submitted that the accused had initiated reconciliation efforts with the deceased’s family and that such efforts demonstrated remorse and willingness to make amends.
9) The Pre-Sentence Report reveals that the accused had previously exhibited signs of mental instability, allegedly aggravated by prolonged abuse of cannabis and alcohol. His family reported that he had once been taken for psychiatric intervention, though treatment was not consistently followed up.
10) The report further indicates that the accused assisted his elderly grandmother with domestic and farm duties prior to his arrest and that the local administration viewed him as capable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
11) On the other hand, the victim’s family informed the probation officer that reconciliation had not yet been finalized and expressed a preference for a custodial sentence owing to the pain and loss suffered.
C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
12) The issue for determination is the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused following his conviction for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
D. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
13) Section 205 of the Penal Code provides that any person convicted of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. However, the sentence to be imposed rests within the discretion of the trial court, depending on the circumstances of each case.
14) Sentencing is a judicial function guided by established principles. In the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic Petition No. 15 of 2015 [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing must take into account the circumstances of the offender and the offence so as to achieve proportionality, fairness, rehabilitation, deterrence, denunciation, and community protection.
15) Similarly, the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016, provide that a sentencing court should consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
16) The aggravating factor in the present matter is obvious and grave: a human life was lost. The deceased was a young woman who died following an unlawful assault by the accused. The pain suffered by her family cannot be understated.
17) Nevertheless, the court must also consider the mitigating circumstances. The accused is a first offender. He pleaded guilty through a plea bargain arrangement and thereby saved the court and witnesses considerable time and expense. In Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493, the Court held that an appellate court may interfere with a sentence where the trial court overlooks material mitigating factors. A plea of guilty is one such important mitigating consideration.
18) The court further notes that the offence was committed in the heat of passion during a domestic quarrel between persons who were romantically involved. There is no evidence that the accused armed himself with a weapon or planned the attack beforehand. The circumstances point to an impulsive act committed under intoxication and emotional agitation.
19) The Pre-Sentence Report also raises concerns regarding the accused’s mental stability and substance abuse history. While this does not excuse criminal conduct, it is a relevant factor in assessing moral blameworthiness and prospects of rehabilitation.
20) The accused has been in custody since 22nd October 2022, a period of approximately three years and seven months. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates this court to take into account the period already spent in custody before sentencing. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR, the Court of Appeal emphasized that sentencing courts must expressly account for time already spent in custody.
21) The court has also considered the possibility of reconciliation between the two families. Although reconciliation has not yet been concluded, the ongoing efforts are encouraging and consistent with restorative justice principles recognized under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution.
22) While the probation officer suggested the possibility of a non-custodial sentence, the court is unable to impose such a sentence in the circumstances of this case. The loss of life occasioned by the unlawful act of the accused calls for a custodial sentence that reflects the sanctity of human life and the need for accountability.
23) At the same time, the court is persuaded that the accused is youthful, remorseful, capable of reform, and not beyond rehabilitation. A lengthy punitive sentence would not serve the interests of justice in the peculiar circumstances of this case.
24) In the case of Republic v Ruth Wanjiku Kamande [2018] eKLR , the court observed that sentencing should strike a balance between punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restorative justice.
25) Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the mitigation, the Pre-Sentence Report, the plea bargain arrangement, the accused’s age, remorse, first offender status, and the period already spent in custody, this court is of the view that a moderate custodial sentence is appropriate.
E. DISPOSITION
26) Consequently, the accused person, COLLINS KIPNGETICH, is hereby sentenced to serve seven (7) years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
27) Pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence shall run from 22nd October 2022, being the date the accused was first remanded in custody.
28) The Officer in Charge of the prison where the accused is held shall ensure that he is enrolled in counselling, rehabilitation, and substance abuse intervention programmes during his incarceration to facilitate his reintegration into society upon release.
29) Right of appeal explained.
30) It is so ordered .
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK, THIS 19TH DAY OF May.2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
NAROK HCCRC NO. E019 OF 2022 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E019 OF 2022
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
COLLINS KIPNGETICH……………………………………………………. ACCUSED
SENTENCING
22/05/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused person, COLLINS KIPNGETICH, was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on 23rd October 2022 at Inter-Farm Lodgings, Mulot Trading Centre, Narok West Sub-County within Narok County, he murdered one WINNY CHEPNGETICH.
2) Subsequently, the parties entered into a Plea Agreement dated 27th October 2025 pursuant to Sections 137A–137O of the Criminal Procedure Code. Following the plea bargain arrangement, the charge of murder was substituted with the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202(1) as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
3) The accused pleaded guilty to the substituted charge on 29th October 2025. The facts contained in paragraph 9 onwards of the Plea Agreement were read and explained to him, and he admitted them as true. The court thereafter convicted him on his own plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter.
4) The court has considered the mitigation by counsel for the accused, the submissions by the prosecution, the Plea Agreement dated 27th October 2025, and the Pre-Sentence Report dated 17th March 2026 prepared by the Probation and After Care Service.
B. MITIGATION AND SENTENCING
5) Learned counsel for the accused urged the court to exercise leniency and submitted that the accused was a first offender with no previous criminal record. The prosecution equally confirmed that the accused had no prior convictions and could be treated as a first offender.
6) Counsel further submitted that the accused was only 20 years old at the time of the offence and that he had a difficult educational background, having only completed primary education. It was submitted that he came from a humble background and was raised by a single mother.
7) The defence emphasized that the offence was not premeditated and that no weapon was used. According to the facts in the Plea Agreement and the Pre-Sentence Report, the incident arose spontaneously in the course of a heated argument while both the accused and the deceased were intoxicated. The accused struck the deceased with the back of his hand, causing her to fall.
8) The court was urged to consider that the accused expressed remorse and accepted responsibility through plea bargaining, thereby saving valuable judicial time. Counsel further submitted that the accused had initiated reconciliation efforts with the deceased’s family and that such efforts demonstrated remorse and willingness to make amends.
9) The Pre-Sentence Report reveals that the accused had previously exhibited signs of mental instability, allegedly aggravated by prolonged abuse of cannabis and alcohol. His family reported that he had once been taken for psychiatric intervention, though treatment was not consistently followed up.
10) The report further indicates that the accused assisted his elderly grandmother with domestic and farm duties prior to his arrest and that the local administration viewed him as capable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
11) On the other hand, the victim’s family informed the probation officer that reconciliation had not yet been finalized and expressed a preference for a custodial sentence owing to the pain and loss suffered.
C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
12) The issue for determination is the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused following his conviction for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
D. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
13) Section 205 of the Penal Code provides that any person convicted of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. However, the sentence to be imposed rests within the discretion of the trial court, depending on the circumstances of each case.
14) Sentencing is a judicial function guided by established principles. In the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic Petition No. 15 of 2015 [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing must take into account the circumstances of the offender and the offence so as to achieve proportionality, fairness, rehabilitation, deterrence, denunciation, and community protection.
15) Similarly, the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016, provide that a sentencing court should consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
16) The aggravating factor in the present matter is obvious and grave: a human life was lost. The deceased was a young woman who died following an unlawful assault by the accused. The pain suffered by her family cannot be understated.
17) Nevertheless, the court must also consider the mitigating circumstances. The accused is a first offender. He pleaded guilty through a plea bargain arrangement and thereby saved the court and witnesses considerable time and expense. In Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493, the Court held that an appellate court may interfere with a sentence where the trial court overlooks material mitigating factors. A plea of guilty is one such important mitigating consideration.
18) The court further notes that the offence was committed in the heat of passion during a domestic quarrel between persons who were romantically involved. There is no evidence that the accused armed himself with a weapon or planned the attack beforehand. The circumstances point to an impulsive act committed under intoxication and emotional agitation.
19) The Pre-Sentence Report also raises concerns regarding the accused’s mental stability and substance abuse history. While this does not excuse criminal conduct, it is a relevant factor in assessing moral blameworthiness and prospects of rehabilitation.
20) The accused has been in custody since 22nd October 2022, a period of approximately three years and seven months. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates this court to take into account the period already spent in custody before sentencing. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic [2018] eKLR, the Court of Appeal emphasized that sentencing courts must expressly account for time already spent in custody.
21) The court has also considered the possibility of reconciliation between the two families. Although reconciliation has not yet been concluded, the ongoing efforts are encouraging and consistent with restorative justice principles recognized under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution.
22) While the probation officer suggested the possibility of a non-custodial sentence, the court is unable to impose such a sentence in the circumstances of this case. The loss of life occasioned by the unlawful act of the accused calls for a custodial sentence that reflects the sanctity of human life and the need for accountability.
23) At the same time, the court is persuaded that the accused is youthful, remorseful, capable of reform, and not beyond rehabilitation. A lengthy punitive sentence would not serve the interests of justice in the peculiar circumstances of this case.
24) In the case of Republic v Ruth Wanjiku Kamande [2018] eKLR , the court observed that sentencing should strike a balance between punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restorative justice.
25) Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the mitigation, the Pre-Sentence Report, the plea bargain arrangement, the accused’s age, remorse, first offender status, and the period already spent in custody, this court is of the view that a moderate custodial sentence is appropriate.
E. DISPOSITION
26) Consequently, the accused person, COLLINS KIPNGETICH, is hereby sentenced to serve seven (7) years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
27) Pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence shall run from 22nd October 2022, being the date the accused was first remanded in custody.
28) The Officer in Charge of the prison where the accused is held shall ensure that he is enrolled in counselling, rehabilitation, and substance abuse intervention programmes during his incarceration to facilitate his reintegration into society upon release.
29) Right of appeal explained.
30) It is so ordered .
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK, THIS 19TH DAY OF May.2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
NAROK HCCRC NO. E019 OF 2022 Page 2 of 2