1. The accused persons herein were, by the judgment of this Court delivered on 19th March 2026, convicted of the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The matter now falls for determination of the appropriate sentence.
2. In arriving at sentence, the Court has taken into account the mitigation advanced on behalf of the accused persons, the circumstances of the offence as set out in the judgment, the pre-sentence inquiry reports dated 20th April 2026, together with the victim impact statement of even date, all of which form part of the record before the Court.
3. The exercise of sentencing discretion is not at large but is guided by established legal and policy principles. In that regard, the Court is guided by the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023, which require that a sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of culpability of the offender, while at the same time advancing the recognised objectives of sentencing, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, community protection and denunciation.
4. Beyond these general principles, the present matter engages the broader constitutional framework within which the criminal law operates. The unlawful taking of life, particularly where it occurs in circumstances involving the exercise of state authority, implicates the core guarantees of the Constitution, including the right to life under Article 26, the right to dignity under Article 28, and the freedom from violence under Article 29, as reinforced by the obligations imposed upon the National Police Service under Article 244.
5. In such circumstances, the Court bears a heightened duty at the sentencing stage to ensure that its response is commensurate not only with the harm occasioned but also with the constitutional values violated. The sentence imposed must therefore communicate, in clear and unmistakable terms, that violence in custody is unlawful, that the abuse of public power cannot be tolerated, and that all persons, irrespective of office, remain subject to the law.
6. The pre-sentence inquiry report in respect of the 1st accused indicates that he is a first offender aged 55 years, a family man and sole breadwinner, who has expressed remorse and seeks leniency. The report relating to the 2nd accused similarly identifies him as a first offender aged 35 years, married with young dependants, who has also expressed remorse and prays for a second chance. While these factors weigh in favour of the accused persons, the Court must equally consider the views of the victim’s family, who describe the offence as a grave abuse of police authority and urge the Court to impose a custodial sentence, as well as the sentiments of the community, which reflect a loss of confidence in law enforcement arising from the circumstances of this case.
7. The aggravating features of the offence are both grave and compelling. The deceased was at all material times in the custody and control of the accused persons, who, as police officers, bore a legal duty to ensure his safety and well-being. Instead, the evidence, as analysed in the judgment, established that the deceased was subjected to sustained and deliberate violence, first at the point of arrest and thereafter within the confines of a police post. That violence resulted in fatal injuries. The conduct of the accused persons following the assault, including the failure to seek timely medical intervention and the making of a false Occurrence Book entry attributing the injuries to unknown persons, further aggravates their culpability and demonstrates an attempt to evade accountability.
8. Set against those aggravating circumstances are the mitigating factors already noted, namely that both accused persons are first offenders, that they have expressed remorse, and that they have family responsibilities. However, the Court is mindful that mitigation, though relevant, cannot eclipse the seriousness of the offence or the broader public interest considerations that arise where a life is lost through the unlawful exercise of state power.
9. Upon a careful balancing of all relevant factors, and bearing in mind the objectives of sentencing as articulated in the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023, the Court is satisfied that this is not a case in which a non-custodial sentence, or indeed a lenient custodial term, would meet the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence, the abuse of authority involved, and the need to deter similar conduct and to restore public confidence in the administration of justice all point inexorably towards the imposition of a substantial custodial sentence.
10. Accordingly, and taking into account the respective roles of the accused persons as established in the judgment, the Court sentences the 1st accused, JAMES OGWAGWA NYAKINA, to thirty (30) years imprisonment, and the 2nd accused, JACKSON KIRUI KIPNGENO, to ten (10) years imprisonment.
11. The sentences shall run from the date of conviction, namely 19th March 2026.
2. In arriving at sentence, the Court has taken into account the mitigation advanced on behalf of the accused persons, the circumstances of the offence as set out in the judgment, the pre-sentence inquiry reports dated 20th April 2026, together with the victim impact statement of even date, all of which form part of the record before the Court.
3. The exercise of sentencing discretion is not at large but is guided by established legal and policy principles. In that regard, the Court is guided by the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023, which require that a sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of culpability of the offender, while at the same time advancing the recognised objectives of sentencing, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, community protection and denunciation.
4. Beyond these general principles, the present matter engages the broader constitutional framework within which the criminal law operates. The unlawful taking of life, particularly where it occurs in circumstances involving the exercise of state authority, implicates the core guarantees of the Constitution, including the right to life under Article 26, the right to dignity under Article 28, and the freedom from violence under Article 29, as reinforced by the obligations imposed upon the National Police Service under Article 244.
5. In such circumstances, the Court bears a heightened duty at the sentencing stage to ensure that its response is commensurate not only with the harm occasioned but also with the constitutional values violated. The sentence imposed must therefore communicate, in clear and unmistakable terms, that violence in custody is unlawful, that the abuse of public power cannot be tolerated, and that all persons, irrespective of office, remain subject to the law.
6. The pre-sentence inquiry report in respect of the 1st accused indicates that he is a first offender aged 55 years, a family man and sole breadwinner, who has expressed remorse and seeks leniency. The report relating to the 2nd accused similarly identifies him as a first offender aged 35 years, married with young dependants, who has also expressed remorse and prays for a second chance. While these factors weigh in favour of the accused persons, the Court must equally consider the views of the victim’s family, who describe the offence as a grave abuse of police authority and urge the Court to impose a custodial sentence, as well as the sentiments of the community, which reflect a loss of confidence in law enforcement arising from the circumstances of this case.
7. The aggravating features of the offence are both grave and compelling. The deceased was at all material times in the custody and control of the accused persons, who, as police officers, bore a legal duty to ensure his safety and well-being. Instead, the evidence, as analysed in the judgment, established that the deceased was subjected to sustained and deliberate violence, first at the point of arrest and thereafter within the confines of a police post. That violence resulted in fatal injuries. The conduct of the accused persons following the assault, including the failure to seek timely medical intervention and the making of a false Occurrence Book entry attributing the injuries to unknown persons, further aggravates their culpability and demonstrates an attempt to evade accountability.
8. Set against those aggravating circumstances are the mitigating factors already noted, namely that both accused persons are first offenders, that they have expressed remorse, and that they have family responsibilities. However, the Court is mindful that mitigation, though relevant, cannot eclipse the seriousness of the offence or the broader public interest considerations that arise where a life is lost through the unlawful exercise of state power.
9. Upon a careful balancing of all relevant factors, and bearing in mind the objectives of sentencing as articulated in the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023, the Court is satisfied that this is not a case in which a non-custodial sentence, or indeed a lenient custodial term, would meet the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence, the abuse of authority involved, and the need to deter similar conduct and to restore public confidence in the administration of justice all point inexorably towards the imposition of a substantial custodial sentence.
10. Accordingly, and taking into account the respective roles of the accused persons as established in the judgment, the Court sentences the 1st accused, JAMES OGWAGWA NYAKINA, to thirty (30) years imprisonment, and the 2nd accused, JACKSON KIRUI KIPNGENO, to ten (10) years imprisonment.
11. The sentences shall run from the date of conviction, namely 19th March 2026.