REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E001 OF 2023
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
GILBERT KIPYEGON LANGAT…………………………………………1 ST ACCUSED
HILLARY KIPKURI LANGAT…………..2 ND ACCUSED (CHARGES WITHDRAWN)
N/B. Plea agreement not in the file.
SENTENCING
03/07/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused persons were initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on the night of 3 rd and 4 th January 2023, at Ololmasani Location, Transmara East Sub-County within Narok County, they jointly murdered Julius Langat.
2) On 5 th December 2023, the charge against the 2 nd accused, Hillary Kipkuri Langat, was withdrawn upon an application by the prosecution under the relevant provisions of the law, with the intention that he would testify as a prosecution witness.
3) Pursuant to a Plea Agreement dated ............... , entered into under Sections 137A–137O of the Criminal Procedure Code, the charge against the 1st accused was reduced to manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded guilty to the substituted charge on 7th May 2026.
4) The facts supporting the plea agreement were read to the accused, who admitted them without qualification by stating:
"The facts are correct."
5) Upon the unequivocal plea of guilty and admission of the facts, the accused was duly convicted of the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
6) Learned Prosecution Counsel, Mr Okeyo, informed the court that the accused is a first offender with no previous criminal record.
7) In mitigation, learned counsel, Ms Mireri, submitted that the accused is a person of good character as reflected in the Pre-Sentence Report and as confirmed by the local administration. Counsel submitted that the offence arose from a domestic dispute involving a suspected love triangle, which culminated in an altercation resulting in the deceased's death. Counsel further submitted that the accused is genuinely remorseful, has accepted responsibility for his actions, and deserves a lenient sentence.
8) It was also submitted that the accused has remained in custody since January 2023 and is married. Although his family has since disintegrated following the incident, he has a young child who depends on him. Counsel further relied on the recommendation in the Pre-Sentence Report that, after serving an appropriate custodial sentence, the accused be facilitated to reintegrate into the community.
9) The court has carefully considered the plea agreement, the admitted facts, the mitigation by counsel, the accused's personal mitigation, the Victim Impact Information contained in the Probation Officer's Pre-Sentence Report dated 18th May 2026, and the applicable law.
B. ANALYSIS
10) The offence of manslaughter, contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code, is a serious felony involving the unlawful taking of human life. Section 205 of the Penal Code provides that a person convicted of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. However, the sentence to be imposed is discretionary and must be determined in light of the particular circumstances of each case, including the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the offender's personal circumstances, and the recognized objectives of sentencing.
11) In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing is a judicial function requiring an individualized approach, taking into account the unique circumstances of both the offender and the offence.
12) Similarly, in Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493 , the Court of Appeal held that an appellate court will only interfere with a sentence where the sentencing court acted on wrong principles, overlooked material factors, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. This underscores the principle that sentencing must strike a proper balance between aggravating and mitigating factors.
13) The court has also considered the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016, which identify the objectives of sentencing as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, and denunciation. A just sentence must therefore balance the interests of the offender, the victims, and society.
14) In the present case, the court has carefully weighed both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The accused is a first offender who accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, thereby saving valuable judicial time and sparing the deceased's family the ordeal of a full trial. He has expressed genuine remorse, has remained in custody since January 2023, and the Pre-Sentence Report portrays him as a person of previously good character with positive antecedents within the community. The offence appears to have arisen spontaneously following a confrontation fuelled by the accused's suspicion that the deceased was engaged in an extramarital relationship with his wife. There is no evidence that the killing was premeditated.
15) Nevertheless, the court cannot overlook the fact that an innocent life was unlawfully lost. The deceased left behind a widow and children who continue to suffer emotional and economic hardship. The Victim Impact Information further demonstrates that the deceased's family remains deeply aggrieved by the loss and has not reconciled with the accused. The court must therefore impose a sentence that upholds the sanctity of human life, denounces the use of violence to resolve personal disputes, deters similar conduct, and, at the same time, provides the accused with an opportunity for rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society.
16) Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, including the accused's guilty plea, his remorse, his previous good character, the recommendations contained in the Pre-Sentence Report, the aggravating impact upon the victim's family, and the period already spent in custody pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is satisfied that a custodial sentence of ten (10) years' imprisonment, to run from 12 th January 2023, when the accused was first arraigned in court, is just, proportionate, and consistent with the objectives of sentencing.
17) Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to ten (10) years' imprisonment, the sentence to run from 12 th January 2023, being the date on which he was first arraigned in court, in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
19) It is so ordered .
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KILGORIS, THIS 3 RD DAY OF JULY 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
KILGORIS HCCRC NO. E001 OF 2023 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E001 OF 2023
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
GILBERT KIPYEGON LANGAT…………………………………………1 ST ACCUSED
HILLARY KIPKURI LANGAT…………..2 ND ACCUSED (CHARGES WITHDRAWN)
N/B. Plea agreement not in the file.
SENTENCING
03/07/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused persons were initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on the night of 3 rd and 4 th January 2023, at Ololmasani Location, Transmara East Sub-County within Narok County, they jointly murdered Julius Langat.
2) On 5 th December 2023, the charge against the 2 nd accused, Hillary Kipkuri Langat, was withdrawn upon an application by the prosecution under the relevant provisions of the law, with the intention that he would testify as a prosecution witness.
3) Pursuant to a Plea Agreement dated ............... , entered into under Sections 137A–137O of the Criminal Procedure Code, the charge against the 1st accused was reduced to manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded guilty to the substituted charge on 7th May 2026.
4) The facts supporting the plea agreement were read to the accused, who admitted them without qualification by stating:
"The facts are correct."
5) Upon the unequivocal plea of guilty and admission of the facts, the accused was duly convicted of the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
6) Learned Prosecution Counsel, Mr Okeyo, informed the court that the accused is a first offender with no previous criminal record.
7) In mitigation, learned counsel, Ms Mireri, submitted that the accused is a person of good character as reflected in the Pre-Sentence Report and as confirmed by the local administration. Counsel submitted that the offence arose from a domestic dispute involving a suspected love triangle, which culminated in an altercation resulting in the deceased's death. Counsel further submitted that the accused is genuinely remorseful, has accepted responsibility for his actions, and deserves a lenient sentence.
8) It was also submitted that the accused has remained in custody since January 2023 and is married. Although his family has since disintegrated following the incident, he has a young child who depends on him. Counsel further relied on the recommendation in the Pre-Sentence Report that, after serving an appropriate custodial sentence, the accused be facilitated to reintegrate into the community.
9) The court has carefully considered the plea agreement, the admitted facts, the mitigation by counsel, the accused's personal mitigation, the Victim Impact Information contained in the Probation Officer's Pre-Sentence Report dated 18th May 2026, and the applicable law.
B. ANALYSIS
10) The offence of manslaughter, contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code, is a serious felony involving the unlawful taking of human life. Section 205 of the Penal Code provides that a person convicted of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. However, the sentence to be imposed is discretionary and must be determined in light of the particular circumstances of each case, including the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the offender's personal circumstances, and the recognized objectives of sentencing.
11) In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing is a judicial function requiring an individualized approach, taking into account the unique circumstances of both the offender and the offence.
12) Similarly, in Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493 , the Court of Appeal held that an appellate court will only interfere with a sentence where the sentencing court acted on wrong principles, overlooked material factors, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. This underscores the principle that sentencing must strike a proper balance between aggravating and mitigating factors.
13) The court has also considered the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016, which identify the objectives of sentencing as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, and denunciation. A just sentence must therefore balance the interests of the offender, the victims, and society.
14) In the present case, the court has carefully weighed both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The accused is a first offender who accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, thereby saving valuable judicial time and sparing the deceased's family the ordeal of a full trial. He has expressed genuine remorse, has remained in custody since January 2023, and the Pre-Sentence Report portrays him as a person of previously good character with positive antecedents within the community. The offence appears to have arisen spontaneously following a confrontation fuelled by the accused's suspicion that the deceased was engaged in an extramarital relationship with his wife. There is no evidence that the killing was premeditated.
15) Nevertheless, the court cannot overlook the fact that an innocent life was unlawfully lost. The deceased left behind a widow and children who continue to suffer emotional and economic hardship. The Victim Impact Information further demonstrates that the deceased's family remains deeply aggrieved by the loss and has not reconciled with the accused. The court must therefore impose a sentence that upholds the sanctity of human life, denounces the use of violence to resolve personal disputes, deters similar conduct, and, at the same time, provides the accused with an opportunity for rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society.
16) Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, including the accused's guilty plea, his remorse, his previous good character, the recommendations contained in the Pre-Sentence Report, the aggravating impact upon the victim's family, and the period already spent in custody pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is satisfied that a custodial sentence of ten (10) years' imprisonment, to run from 12 th January 2023, when the accused was first arraigned in court, is just, proportionate, and consistent with the objectives of sentencing.
17) Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to ten (10) years' imprisonment, the sentence to run from 12 th January 2023, being the date on which he was first arraigned in court, in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
19) It is so ordered .
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KILGORIS, THIS 3 RD DAY OF JULY 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
KILGORIS HCCRC NO. E001 OF 2023 Page 2 of 2