SENTENCE
1. Jared Barongo Sendora, the co-accused herein, was initially charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. Upon considering the totality of the evidence, the Court found that the accused unlawfully caused the death of William Kengere Mandere but that the killing occurred in the heat of passion following sudden provocation.
2. The Court consequently found that malice aforethought had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter and convicted the accused of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. The Court specifically found that the incident was a crime of passion, committed spontaneously and without premeditation.
3. The prosecution told the Court that the convict does not have a criminal record. In mitigation, the accused’s lawyer asked the Court to consider that he is a first-time offender, that the offence happened because of sudden provocation, that he did not run away after the incident, and that he has shown remorse.
4. I have considered the nature of the offence, its circumstances and pre-sentence report dated 17th June 2026. The report indicates that the accused is 58 years old, is married, has children and has no known history of criminal conduct, alcohol abuse or substance abuse. He has expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for the death of the deceased.
5. The accused’s family is willing to help with his rehabilitation. Local officials and community members described him as peaceful and not confrontational. The report also says he stayed in the community while on bond and did not cause any trouble or safety concerns. The community thinks he can be reintegrated.
6. The Court has also considered the views of the deceased’s family. The deceased’s widow stated that the deceased was the sole breadwinner and that, following his death, she has had to undertake casual labour to support their four school-going children. The family continues to suffer emotional, psychological and economic hardship and is opposed to a non-custodial sentence. Those views are important and have not been disregarded.
7. The loss of the deceased’s life is permanent and cannot be adequately compensated by any sentence. The deceased suffered multiple severe injuries to the head, chest and limbs, including the amputation of his right hand. The force employed by the accused was excessive and disproportionate, notwithstanding the circumstances in which the confrontation arose.
8. Nevertheless, sentencing must remain individualised and proportionate to both the offence and the offender’s degree of moral culpability. The Court must consider not only the consequences of the offence but also the circumstances in which it was committed.
9. Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act empowers the High Court, after conviction, to make a probation order in place of punishment where the offender’s age, character, antecedents, home surroundings, the nature of the offence or the extenuating circumstances surrounding its commission justify such an order. A probation order may remain in force for a period of between six months and three years.
10. Although provocation has already informed the reduction of the offence from murder to manslaughter, its nature and immediacy remain relevant when assessing the accused’s degree of blameworthiness. The killing did not arise from a planned attack, criminal enterprise or sustained prior hostility. The accused unexpectedly encountered the deceased in his matrimonial home at night in circumstances suggesting an intimate relationship with his wife. The confrontation was immediate and the accused acted before his passion had cooled.
11. The Court does not condone the accused’s violent response. Provocation does not justify the taking of life as life is sacred . It, however, substantially reduces his moral culpability because the offence arose from a sudden loss of self-control rather than a calculated intention to kill.
12.I have further considered that:
a. the accused is a first offender;
b. the offence was not premeditated;
c. he presented himself to the police shortly after the incident and did not attempt to flee;
d. he has expressed remorse;
e. he has strong family and community support;
f. he complied with the conditions of his bond and lived peacefully in the community during the trial;
g. the local administration does not consider him a threat to the community;
h. there is no indication that he is likely to reoffend; and
i13. the Probation Officer has recommended that he serve a probation sentence for three years.
13. The opposition expressed by the deceased’s family has been carefully considered. However, the views of the victim’s family, though significant, are not by themselves determinative of the sentence. The Court must balance their legitimate interest in justice with the constitutional and statutory requirement that punishment be proportionate and responsive to the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation.
14. In the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the accused does not require incarceration for the protection of the community. The objectives of accountability, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice and reintegration can be achieved through a structured and closely supervised non-custodial sentence.
15. Accordingly, the accused, Jared Barongo Sendora, is sentenced to serve three years’ probation under the supervision of the Probation and Aftercare Service.
16. The probation order shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The accused shall report to the Probation Officer responsible for the area in which he resides immediately upon his release.
b. He shall comply with all lawful directions and supervision requirements issued by the Probation Officer.
c. He shall attend and complete counselling programmes on anger management, peaceful conflict resolution, emotional regulation and responsible family relationships.
d. He shall maintain peace and good conduct and shall not commit any offence during the probation period.
e. He shall not intimidate, threaten or harass any member of the deceased’s family.
18. The accused is cautioned that failure to comply with any condition of the probation order, or the commission of another offence during the probation period, may result in his arrest and return to this Court for sentencing for the original offence.
19. The parties have a right of appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Orders accordingly.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
29.7.26
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2026. IN THE PRESENCE OF :
THE CONVICT. MR OKENYE FOR HIM
MR KOIMA FOR THE STATE.
CA : KIPCHIRCHIR
1. Jared Barongo Sendora, the co-accused herein, was initially charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. Upon considering the totality of the evidence, the Court found that the accused unlawfully caused the death of William Kengere Mandere but that the killing occurred in the heat of passion following sudden provocation.
2. The Court consequently found that malice aforethought had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter and convicted the accused of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. The Court specifically found that the incident was a crime of passion, committed spontaneously and without premeditation.
3. The prosecution told the Court that the convict does not have a criminal record. In mitigation, the accused’s lawyer asked the Court to consider that he is a first-time offender, that the offence happened because of sudden provocation, that he did not run away after the incident, and that he has shown remorse.
4. I have considered the nature of the offence, its circumstances and pre-sentence report dated 17th June 2026. The report indicates that the accused is 58 years old, is married, has children and has no known history of criminal conduct, alcohol abuse or substance abuse. He has expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for the death of the deceased.
5. The accused’s family is willing to help with his rehabilitation. Local officials and community members described him as peaceful and not confrontational. The report also says he stayed in the community while on bond and did not cause any trouble or safety concerns. The community thinks he can be reintegrated.
6. The Court has also considered the views of the deceased’s family. The deceased’s widow stated that the deceased was the sole breadwinner and that, following his death, she has had to undertake casual labour to support their four school-going children. The family continues to suffer emotional, psychological and economic hardship and is opposed to a non-custodial sentence. Those views are important and have not been disregarded.
7. The loss of the deceased’s life is permanent and cannot be adequately compensated by any sentence. The deceased suffered multiple severe injuries to the head, chest and limbs, including the amputation of his right hand. The force employed by the accused was excessive and disproportionate, notwithstanding the circumstances in which the confrontation arose.
8. Nevertheless, sentencing must remain individualised and proportionate to both the offence and the offender’s degree of moral culpability. The Court must consider not only the consequences of the offence but also the circumstances in which it was committed.
9. Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act empowers the High Court, after conviction, to make a probation order in place of punishment where the offender’s age, character, antecedents, home surroundings, the nature of the offence or the extenuating circumstances surrounding its commission justify such an order. A probation order may remain in force for a period of between six months and three years.
10. Although provocation has already informed the reduction of the offence from murder to manslaughter, its nature and immediacy remain relevant when assessing the accused’s degree of blameworthiness. The killing did not arise from a planned attack, criminal enterprise or sustained prior hostility. The accused unexpectedly encountered the deceased in his matrimonial home at night in circumstances suggesting an intimate relationship with his wife. The confrontation was immediate and the accused acted before his passion had cooled.
11. The Court does not condone the accused’s violent response. Provocation does not justify the taking of life as life is sacred . It, however, substantially reduces his moral culpability because the offence arose from a sudden loss of self-control rather than a calculated intention to kill.
12.I have further considered that:
a. the accused is a first offender;
b. the offence was not premeditated;
c. he presented himself to the police shortly after the incident and did not attempt to flee;
d. he has expressed remorse;
e. he has strong family and community support;
f. he complied with the conditions of his bond and lived peacefully in the community during the trial;
g. the local administration does not consider him a threat to the community;
h. there is no indication that he is likely to reoffend; and
i13. the Probation Officer has recommended that he serve a probation sentence for three years.
13. The opposition expressed by the deceased’s family has been carefully considered. However, the views of the victim’s family, though significant, are not by themselves determinative of the sentence. The Court must balance their legitimate interest in justice with the constitutional and statutory requirement that punishment be proportionate and responsive to the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation.
14. In the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the accused does not require incarceration for the protection of the community. The objectives of accountability, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice and reintegration can be achieved through a structured and closely supervised non-custodial sentence.
15. Accordingly, the accused, Jared Barongo Sendora, is sentenced to serve three years’ probation under the supervision of the Probation and Aftercare Service.
16. The probation order shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The accused shall report to the Probation Officer responsible for the area in which he resides immediately upon his release.
b. He shall comply with all lawful directions and supervision requirements issued by the Probation Officer.
c. He shall attend and complete counselling programmes on anger management, peaceful conflict resolution, emotional regulation and responsible family relationships.
d. He shall maintain peace and good conduct and shall not commit any offence during the probation period.
e. He shall not intimidate, threaten or harass any member of the deceased’s family.
18. The accused is cautioned that failure to comply with any condition of the probation order, or the commission of another offence during the probation period, may result in his arrest and return to this Court for sentencing for the original offence.
19. The parties have a right of appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Orders accordingly.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
29.7.26
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2026. IN THE PRESENCE OF :
THE CONVICT. MR OKENYE FOR HIM
MR KOIMA FOR THE STATE.
CA : KIPCHIRCHIR