RULING ON SENTENCE
1. Introduction
1. The accused person, Enock Abere Nyamango, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. In the judgment delivered on 27th January 2026, this court found the accused guilty of the offence of murder and convicted him under section 322(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The matter was thereafter adjourned for victim impact statements, mitigation and preparation of a pre-sentence report.
2. Victim Impact Statements
4. The father of the deceased, James Nyamongo Ongiki, addressed the court and stated that the deceased was a key member of the family who supported several dependants. He expressed deep pain over the loss of his son and urged the court to impose a severe punishment upon the accused.
5. The deceased’s sister, Beatrice Barongo Nyamongo, also addressed the court. She stated that the family was still traumatized by the sudden death of their kin and requested the court to ensure justice is served through a custodial sentence.
3. Mitigation by the Accused
6. Learned counsel Miss Onyiengo for the accused submitted that the accused is a first offender, a family man, and the breadwinner of his family, including his ailing father.
7. Counsel further submitted that the accused has been in custody since the year 2022 awaiting determination of the case and prayed that the court considers a non-custodial sentence. It was also submitted that the deceased and the accused were cousins, and the incident arose in a family context.
4. Pre-Sentence Report
9. The court received and carefully considered the Pre-Sentence Report prepared by the Probation and Aftercare Service. The report indicates that the accused is a 52-year-old man, married with three children, he previously worked as a power saw operator supporting his family.
10. He has no previous criminal record and was described by family members as hardworking and responsible prior to the offence.
11. However, the report further reveals that the accused continues to deny responsibility for the offence, despite the conviction by the court.
12. The victim’s family expressed strong opposition to his release and indicated that they have not received any apology or reconciliation efforts from the accused’s family.
13. Community members interviewed during the preparation of the report indicated that tension remains high within the locality and that the safety of the accused could be at risk if he returned to the community immediately.
14. The probation officer therefore concluded that a non-custodial sentence may not be suitable in the circumstances due to the prevailing hostility within the community.
5. Principles Governing Sentencing
16. Sentencing is a discretionary exercise guided by established principles. The objectives of sentencing were summarized in the Sentencing Policy Guidelines (2016) issued by the Judiciary of Kenya, which include:
• Retribution
• Deterrence
• Rehabilitation
• Community protection
• Restorative justice
17. In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that although section 204 of the Penal Code provides for the death penalty for murder, the sentence is not mandatory, and courts must exercise discretion after considering the circumstances of each case.
18. The Supreme Court further outlined mitigating factors which a court should consider in sentencing for murder, including:
• the age of the offender
• whether the offender is a first offender
• remorsefulness of the offender
• the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation
• the circumstances in which the offence was committed.
6. Analysis
19. I have carefully considered the following factors:
(a) Nature of the offence
20. The accused violently assaulted the deceased, striking him on the head with a metal object, resulting in fatal intracranial injuries.
21. The attack targeted the head, a vulnerable part of the body, and was carried out when the deceased was already on the ground.
22. The offence therefore demonstrates extreme violence.
(b) Relationship between the accused and the deceased
23. The accused and the deceased were close relatives (cousins).
24. Crimes committed within families often have devastating social consequences and cause deep divisions within communities.
(c) Mitigating factors
25. The accused is a first offender.
26. He is 52 years old and has family responsibilities.
27. He has been in custody since April 2022, a period of approximately four years awaiting the determination of this case.
(d) Aggravating factors
28. The accused denies responsibility despite the conviction of this court.
29. The victim’s family remains deeply aggrieved and reconciliation has not been achieved.
30. The pre-sentence report indicates strong hostility within the community and recommends against a non-custodial sentence.
7. Determination
31. Taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, and the need for deterrence and all the necessary factors , I find that a non-custodial sentence would be inappropriate in the circumstances of this case.
32. At the same time, the court must consider the mitigating factors including the accused being a first offender and the period already spent in custody.
8. Sentence
33. In the circumstances, and guided by the principles set out in Muruatetu (supra), I hereby sentence the accused Enock Abere Nyamango to:
Thirty (20) years imprisonment.
35. Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence shall run from 10.5.22 when he was first arraigned in court till completion in full.
36. Accused has a right of Appeal
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.3.26
DELIVERED, VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS AT THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2026, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CONVICT , HIS COUNSEL MISS ONYIEGO , MR KOIMA FOR THE STATE & COURT ASSISTANT MR KIPCHIRCHIR
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.3.26
Order : Proceedings , Judgment and Ruling on sentence be urgently typed and supplied to the convict.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.3.26
1. Introduction
1. The accused person, Enock Abere Nyamango, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. In the judgment delivered on 27th January 2026, this court found the accused guilty of the offence of murder and convicted him under section 322(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The matter was thereafter adjourned for victim impact statements, mitigation and preparation of a pre-sentence report.
2. Victim Impact Statements
4. The father of the deceased, James Nyamongo Ongiki, addressed the court and stated that the deceased was a key member of the family who supported several dependants. He expressed deep pain over the loss of his son and urged the court to impose a severe punishment upon the accused.
5. The deceased’s sister, Beatrice Barongo Nyamongo, also addressed the court. She stated that the family was still traumatized by the sudden death of their kin and requested the court to ensure justice is served through a custodial sentence.
3. Mitigation by the Accused
6. Learned counsel Miss Onyiengo for the accused submitted that the accused is a first offender, a family man, and the breadwinner of his family, including his ailing father.
7. Counsel further submitted that the accused has been in custody since the year 2022 awaiting determination of the case and prayed that the court considers a non-custodial sentence. It was also submitted that the deceased and the accused were cousins, and the incident arose in a family context.
4. Pre-Sentence Report
9. The court received and carefully considered the Pre-Sentence Report prepared by the Probation and Aftercare Service. The report indicates that the accused is a 52-year-old man, married with three children, he previously worked as a power saw operator supporting his family.
10. He has no previous criminal record and was described by family members as hardworking and responsible prior to the offence.
11. However, the report further reveals that the accused continues to deny responsibility for the offence, despite the conviction by the court.
12. The victim’s family expressed strong opposition to his release and indicated that they have not received any apology or reconciliation efforts from the accused’s family.
13. Community members interviewed during the preparation of the report indicated that tension remains high within the locality and that the safety of the accused could be at risk if he returned to the community immediately.
14. The probation officer therefore concluded that a non-custodial sentence may not be suitable in the circumstances due to the prevailing hostility within the community.
5. Principles Governing Sentencing
16. Sentencing is a discretionary exercise guided by established principles. The objectives of sentencing were summarized in the Sentencing Policy Guidelines (2016) issued by the Judiciary of Kenya, which include:
• Retribution
• Deterrence
• Rehabilitation
• Community protection
• Restorative justice
17. In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that although section 204 of the Penal Code provides for the death penalty for murder, the sentence is not mandatory, and courts must exercise discretion after considering the circumstances of each case.
18. The Supreme Court further outlined mitigating factors which a court should consider in sentencing for murder, including:
• the age of the offender
• whether the offender is a first offender
• remorsefulness of the offender
• the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation
• the circumstances in which the offence was committed.
6. Analysis
19. I have carefully considered the following factors:
(a) Nature of the offence
20. The accused violently assaulted the deceased, striking him on the head with a metal object, resulting in fatal intracranial injuries.
21. The attack targeted the head, a vulnerable part of the body, and was carried out when the deceased was already on the ground.
22. The offence therefore demonstrates extreme violence.
(b) Relationship between the accused and the deceased
23. The accused and the deceased were close relatives (cousins).
24. Crimes committed within families often have devastating social consequences and cause deep divisions within communities.
(c) Mitigating factors
25. The accused is a first offender.
26. He is 52 years old and has family responsibilities.
27. He has been in custody since April 2022, a period of approximately four years awaiting the determination of this case.
(d) Aggravating factors
28. The accused denies responsibility despite the conviction of this court.
29. The victim’s family remains deeply aggrieved and reconciliation has not been achieved.
30. The pre-sentence report indicates strong hostility within the community and recommends against a non-custodial sentence.
7. Determination
31. Taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, and the need for deterrence and all the necessary factors , I find that a non-custodial sentence would be inappropriate in the circumstances of this case.
32. At the same time, the court must consider the mitigating factors including the accused being a first offender and the period already spent in custody.
8. Sentence
33. In the circumstances, and guided by the principles set out in Muruatetu (supra), I hereby sentence the accused Enock Abere Nyamango to:
Thirty (20) years imprisonment.
35. Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence shall run from 10.5.22 when he was first arraigned in court till completion in full.
36. Accused has a right of Appeal
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.3.26
DELIVERED, VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS AT THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2026, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CONVICT , HIS COUNSEL MISS ONYIEGO , MR KOIMA FOR THE STATE & COURT ASSISTANT MR KIPCHIRCHIR
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.3.26
Order : Proceedings , Judgment and Ruling on sentence be urgently typed and supplied to the convict.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
13.3.26