REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. E022 OF 2021
REPUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DICKSON KINARO BARONGO
ACCUSED
RULING ON SENTENCE
1. RULING ON SENTENCE
1. The accused, Dickson Kinaro Barongo, was convicted of the murder of Calvin Onyango Omollo, contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The Court found that, during a confrontation at Mwata Market Centre on 9th September 2021, the accused deliberately drew a long kitchen knife and stabbed the deceased once on the left side of the chest. The stab wound penetrated the chest cavity and lacerated the heart, causing the deceased's death. He was convicted on 29 th June 2026
2. The State informed the Court that the accused has no previous criminal record. Learned counsel for the accused urged the Court to treat him as a first offender, to consider that he is 26 years old and a student, and to impose a lenient, preferably non-custodial, sentence. Counsel also asked the Court to take into account the period spent in custody pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. I have considered the mitigation, the nature of the offence, the pre-sentence report dated 20th July 2026, the victim impact statement contained in that report, the circumstances of the offence, and the applicable sentencing principles.
4. Section 204 of the Penal Code prescribes death as the penalty for murder. However, the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR, as clarified in Muruatetu & another v Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) [2021] KESC 31 (KLR), held that the mandatory nature of that sentence is unconstitutional. A court sentencing a person for murder must therefore consider the individual circumstances of both the offence and the offender and impose a sentence that is lawful, proportionate and just.
5. The objectives of sentencing relevant to this case include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the public, denunciation of unlawful violence and recognition of the harm suffered by the victim and his family. None of those objectives is decisive on its own. The Court must arrive at a sentence that reflects the gravity of taking a human life while preserving a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.
6. In mitigation, the court was told that the offender is young and has no previous criminal record. He comes from a stable and supportive family. Before this offence, his family, neighbours, and the local administration regarded him as disciplined, respectful, and law-abiding. He has no reported history of substance abuse. While on bond, he complied with the conditions imposed by the Court, resumed his studies at Kisii National Polytechnic and completed his coursework, save for two examination units. The report assesses him as having rehabilitative potential and confirms that his family is willing to support his eventual reintegration.
7. The accused's continued denial of the offence cannot attract the same mitigating weight as a genuine acknowledgement of wrongdoing and remorse. An accused person is entitled to maintain his innocence and ought not to receive a harsher sentence merely because he exercised his right to trial. Nevertheless, where responsibility is denied even after conviction, the Court cannot treat expressions of sympathy as proof of demonstrated remorse or insight. The pre-sentence report correctly observes that this limited acceptance of responsibility may make rehabilitative work on accountability and victim empathy more difficult.
8. The aggravating features are substantial. The accused used a lethal weapon and directed it at the deceased's chest, a vulnerable part of the body containing vital organs. The deceased was unarmed. The stab wound penetrated the heart and caused an irreversible loss of life. Although the convict inflicted one blow upon decesed and the evidence does not disclose prolonged torture or elaborate premeditation, the act was deliberate, and its consequences were fatal.
9. The victim impact statement demonstrates that the deceased's death caused profound and continuing harm. His family reports grief, depression, psychological trauma and sleep disturbance. The deceased had been the principal provider for his mother's household, and his death transferred that financial responsibility to his elderly father. No sentence can restore the deceased's life or erase that suffering, but the sentence must acknowledge the sanctity of life and the seriousness of the harm caused.
10. I have considered the request for a non-custodial sentence. Murder is among the gravest offences known to law. In the circumstances of this case, a non-custodial sentence would not adequately reflect the accused's culpability, the deliberate use of a knife against the deceased's chest, the loss of life, the need for deterrence or the legitimate interests of the victim's family. A substantial custodial sentence is therefore necessary.
11. I have also considered whether the death penalty or life imprisonment is warranted. The offence was grave, but the record does not disclose exceptional features such as multiple victims, prolonged or sadistic violence, careful premeditation, concealment of the body, or an established continuing danger to the public. The accused is young, has no previous convictions and has identifiable prospects of rehabilitation. In my view, neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment would be proportionate.
12. Balancing all the circumstances, including the deliberate targeting of a vital part of the body, the single fatal stab wound, the accused's youth, his status as a first offender, his positive antecedents, his compliance while on bond, the serious impact upon the deceased's family, and his limited acceptance of responsibility, I find that a determinate sentence of fifteen (15) years' imprisonment is just and proportionate.
13. The accused, Dickson Kinaro Barongo, is therefore sentenced to fifteen (15) years' imprisonment. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Court to give real and meaningful credit for every period the accused was held in custody before sentence. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR), merely stating that custody has been considered is insufficient; the imposed term must be reduced proportionately by the period already spent in custody.
14. The record before me shows that the accused was not held in custody pending trial as plea was taken on 21.9.21 and he was released on the same day. However upon his conviction his bond was cancelled and he was held in custody from 29.6.26 awaiting pre-sentence report till today, 16 th June, when he was sentenced (which is 79 days). I accordingly direct the prison authorities to take into account the remand period of 79 days while computing the sentence of the accused. The sentence shall run from 29.6.26 till completion.
15. The accused has a right of appeal against conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal within fourteen (14) days.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
16.9.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 :
In the presence of:
Convict
Counsel for the State: Mr Koima
Counsel for the Accused: Mokaya
Court Assistant: Kipchirchir
Mokaya: We seek to appeal. We seek proceedings.
Order: Proceedings be typed and supplied to the defence
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
16.9.26
2 | Page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. E022 OF 2021
REPUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DICKSON KINARO BARONGO
ACCUSED
RULING ON SENTENCE
1. RULING ON SENTENCE
1. The accused, Dickson Kinaro Barongo, was convicted of the murder of Calvin Onyango Omollo, contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The Court found that, during a confrontation at Mwata Market Centre on 9th September 2021, the accused deliberately drew a long kitchen knife and stabbed the deceased once on the left side of the chest. The stab wound penetrated the chest cavity and lacerated the heart, causing the deceased's death. He was convicted on 29 th June 2026
2. The State informed the Court that the accused has no previous criminal record. Learned counsel for the accused urged the Court to treat him as a first offender, to consider that he is 26 years old and a student, and to impose a lenient, preferably non-custodial, sentence. Counsel also asked the Court to take into account the period spent in custody pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. I have considered the mitigation, the nature of the offence, the pre-sentence report dated 20th July 2026, the victim impact statement contained in that report, the circumstances of the offence, and the applicable sentencing principles.
4. Section 204 of the Penal Code prescribes death as the penalty for murder. However, the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR, as clarified in Muruatetu & another v Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) [2021] KESC 31 (KLR), held that the mandatory nature of that sentence is unconstitutional. A court sentencing a person for murder must therefore consider the individual circumstances of both the offence and the offender and impose a sentence that is lawful, proportionate and just.
5. The objectives of sentencing relevant to this case include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the public, denunciation of unlawful violence and recognition of the harm suffered by the victim and his family. None of those objectives is decisive on its own. The Court must arrive at a sentence that reflects the gravity of taking a human life while preserving a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.
6. In mitigation, the court was told that the offender is young and has no previous criminal record. He comes from a stable and supportive family. Before this offence, his family, neighbours, and the local administration regarded him as disciplined, respectful, and law-abiding. He has no reported history of substance abuse. While on bond, he complied with the conditions imposed by the Court, resumed his studies at Kisii National Polytechnic and completed his coursework, save for two examination units. The report assesses him as having rehabilitative potential and confirms that his family is willing to support his eventual reintegration.
7. The accused's continued denial of the offence cannot attract the same mitigating weight as a genuine acknowledgement of wrongdoing and remorse. An accused person is entitled to maintain his innocence and ought not to receive a harsher sentence merely because he exercised his right to trial. Nevertheless, where responsibility is denied even after conviction, the Court cannot treat expressions of sympathy as proof of demonstrated remorse or insight. The pre-sentence report correctly observes that this limited acceptance of responsibility may make rehabilitative work on accountability and victim empathy more difficult.
8. The aggravating features are substantial. The accused used a lethal weapon and directed it at the deceased's chest, a vulnerable part of the body containing vital organs. The deceased was unarmed. The stab wound penetrated the heart and caused an irreversible loss of life. Although the convict inflicted one blow upon decesed and the evidence does not disclose prolonged torture or elaborate premeditation, the act was deliberate, and its consequences were fatal.
9. The victim impact statement demonstrates that the deceased's death caused profound and continuing harm. His family reports grief, depression, psychological trauma and sleep disturbance. The deceased had been the principal provider for his mother's household, and his death transferred that financial responsibility to his elderly father. No sentence can restore the deceased's life or erase that suffering, but the sentence must acknowledge the sanctity of life and the seriousness of the harm caused.
10. I have considered the request for a non-custodial sentence. Murder is among the gravest offences known to law. In the circumstances of this case, a non-custodial sentence would not adequately reflect the accused's culpability, the deliberate use of a knife against the deceased's chest, the loss of life, the need for deterrence or the legitimate interests of the victim's family. A substantial custodial sentence is therefore necessary.
11. I have also considered whether the death penalty or life imprisonment is warranted. The offence was grave, but the record does not disclose exceptional features such as multiple victims, prolonged or sadistic violence, careful premeditation, concealment of the body, or an established continuing danger to the public. The accused is young, has no previous convictions and has identifiable prospects of rehabilitation. In my view, neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment would be proportionate.
12. Balancing all the circumstances, including the deliberate targeting of a vital part of the body, the single fatal stab wound, the accused's youth, his status as a first offender, his positive antecedents, his compliance while on bond, the serious impact upon the deceased's family, and his limited acceptance of responsibility, I find that a determinate sentence of fifteen (15) years' imprisonment is just and proportionate.
13. The accused, Dickson Kinaro Barongo, is therefore sentenced to fifteen (15) years' imprisonment. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Court to give real and meaningful credit for every period the accused was held in custody before sentence. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR), merely stating that custody has been considered is insufficient; the imposed term must be reduced proportionately by the period already spent in custody.
14. The record before me shows that the accused was not held in custody pending trial as plea was taken on 21.9.21 and he was released on the same day. However upon his conviction his bond was cancelled and he was held in custody from 29.6.26 awaiting pre-sentence report till today, 16 th June, when he was sentenced (which is 79 days). I accordingly direct the prison authorities to take into account the remand period of 79 days while computing the sentence of the accused. The sentence shall run from 29.6.26 till completion.
15. The accused has a right of appeal against conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal within fourteen (14) days.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
16.9.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 :
In the presence of:
Convict
Counsel for the State: Mr Koima
Counsel for the Accused: Mokaya
Court Assistant: Kipchirchir
Mokaya: We seek to appeal. We seek proceedings.
Order: Proceedings be typed and supplied to the defence
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
16.9.26
2 | Page