The Republic VS KENNEDY NGANGA MUIYORO ALIAS KEN The Republic VS KENNEDY NGANGA MUIYORO ALIAS KEN

SENTENCE

The accused person was charged with the offence of Murder of Eddy Odhiambo contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code which was reduced to that of Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code following a plea bargain at the request of the accused
The accused person herein (Kennedy Ng'ang'a aged 27 years) is the first born son to Peter Muiyoro Karanja and Mercy Kwamboka who lived in Dandora Phase II plot number 1315 in Flamingo court, which belonged to the father. The parents separated in the year 2006 whereby the accused went to leave with his mother in Kisii.
In the year 2015 the deceased came back to Nairobi with his brother and mother in the same plot, where the accused built four temporary rental houses.
The accused person and the deceased, Eddy Odhiambo were great friends who lived together in accused's father land in Dandora Phase II. The house in which the deceased lived in was constructed by both the accused and the deceased. The agreement was that the deceased was not supposed to pay rent.
On 2nd May 2021, the accused claimed that the deceased was not paying rent for the last four months, went to the deceased's house, removed the deceased's households and threw them outside the house demanding that the deceased must relocate.
Vincent Omondi, (brother to the deceased) went to see the deceased at around 1500hrs on the same day. He found his belongings scattered outside but did not find the deceased. The accused told Vincent that the deceased had not paid the rent arrears and that he has no respect for other tenants.
The deceased went and spent the night at his brothers' house and he assured the brother that he had a new place to relocate to the following day.
Evaline Achieng Adong (mother to the deceased) visited her son the same day and found his household items strewn outside his house. When she asked the accused about it, she was told that the deceased has rent arrears of kshs.2000/= and that they had sorted it out and that the accused person would return the household items back into the house. The mother offered to pay the balance.
On 3rd May 2021 the deceased went to Joseph Gitau's house and borrowed Gitau's mkokoteni so that he could carry his belongings to Gitau's place.
The accused and the deceased picked a quarrel and started fighting outside the house, whereby the accused chased the deceased towards the gate and severally stabbed him on the head and the neck.
Marcy Kwamboka (accused's mother) saw the two fighting and accused chased the deceased outside the gate while holding a knife.
The deceased was taken to Mukunga dispensary by joseph Gitau and friends using the mkokoten that the deceased had borrowed from Gitau and later transferred to Mama Lucy Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
CPL Robert Cheruiyot and other police officers who were on patrol were alerted by members of the public that there was an incident at Flamingo court. The police visited the scene and recovered the murder weapon in a ditch.
The scene was photographed, documented by DCI officers from Dandora police station. The officers visited Mama lucy Hospital where they found the body of the deceased with deep cuts on the head and chest.
On 5th May 2021, Vincent Omondi and Maureen Atieno Onditi identified the body for the post mortem whereby Dr. Maingi performed the post mortem and formed the opinion that the deceased died from exsanguination due to sharp object trauma to the head and chest.
On 10th March 2023 acting on intelligence report and with the assistance of Police officers from Kihumbuini Police Station in Muranga the accused person was arrested.
Accused person was detained at Dandora Police Station vide Miscellaneous application number E248 of 2023 filed at Makadara Chief Magistrate's Court.
Accused person was taken to Mathare Mental Hospital for mental assessment and a report was prepared dated 28th March 2023 in which the psychiatrist certified the accused fit to stand trial.
The accused person voluntarily offered to plead guilty to the offence of Manslaughter which plea was accepted by the prosecution. The accused appeared before this and pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter. Upon the facts being read to him the accused person admitted the facts to be true.
As a result, the court convicted the accused for the offence of Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal Code.
The court invited the deceased’s mother who offered a victim’s impact statement. The mother of the deceased painfully explained to the court how she has to struggle in bringing up the lone child of the deceased. As she narrated to the court her version of events, she made it clear that her wish was to see the accused person sentenced to the most severe sentence that the law allows.

MITIGATION

In mitigation the accused acknowledged that there was nothing he could say in his mitigation that could bring back the deceased to life.
He further acknowledged through counsel that there was no amount of remorse or regret or apologies no matter how sincere they may be, that could undo the unfortunate incident that had brought him before the court.
He tendered an unreserved apology to the family, friends and the deceased’s loved ones.
He regretted the events of that day that led to the deceased’s death.
He said if time could be rolled back he would do things very differently.
He further indicated that they were friends with the deceased.
He informed the court that he had no intention to hurt the deceased.
He did not plan and did not pre determine that the late Eddy would lose his life through his action.
He told the court that he decided to plea bargain to save the courts time, admit guilt and take responsibility over his action.
He hoped that deceased’s family would find healing.
The accused urged that the court to consider a letter dated 28/3/2023 from MATHARE Hospital which indicated that he has had history of substance abuse that could possibly have contributed to his actions.
He informed the court that he was arrested on 10/3/2023 and he was denied bail.
He had been in custody since then which is a period of almost 2 years.
The accused urged the court to take into account the period spent in custody in sentencing him.
The accused further informed the court that during his stint in prison he has had time to reflect on his life and conduct going forward thus he pleaded for leniency.
The accused also urged the court to consider that as part of rehabilitation, he has undertaken some programmes to acquire life skills while in remand. He indicated that he has obtained certificates namely;-
Baptism certificate dated 24^th June 2023.
Certificates on the prisoner’s journey dated 19^th July 2023.
Silver level certificate completion of 25 sessions of Prison Project Philip dated 6^th December 2024.

The accused has reformed.

He indicated that he would be ready to come back to society and live harmoniously with other members of society should the court give him a second chance.
The accused urged the court to consider that he is 29 years old, has no wife or child and that his parents depended on him for support from his casual jobs.
The accused urged the court to consider that a lengthy sentence would mean he loses an opportunity in life.
He intends to marry and raise a family.
The accused person accepted responsibility and promised the court that he would take the decision of this court with peace.
This court has taken into account the facts as narrated by the prosecution and admitted by the accused person, the victim’s family’s concerns as expressed through the deceased’s mother as well as is moving mitigation.
The court notes that the death of the deceased arose out of circumstances that could clearly could have been avoided. The facts reveal that the deceased had indicated willingness to move away from the house that the accused person had complained about his non payment of rent.
The facts do not reveal any element of provocation on the part of the deceased thus the stabbing of the deceased was completely unjustified and a callous act on the part of the accused. The fact that the accused person had played host to the deceased did not give him the moral authority to assault the deceased in the manner he did. The attack on the deceased was most savage and calls for a severe punishment be imposed upon the accused who appears to have very little regard for human life.
The courts have a duty to deter the commission of such heinous crimes for they seem to be gaining currency with the youth of this country a fact that this court has taken notice of.
The right to life is so sacred that the state must deploy all the necessary means to protect and preserve life. The taking of innocent lives must not be allowed to become a norm in this country.
As a result, this court has taken into account the fact that the accused has been in custody since 10^th of March 2023 which is about 2 years and 2 months and in accordance with Section 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code the court shall take that into account in determining the period the accused person shall serve in prison custody.
The offence of manslaughter attracts a life sentence. However, since the accused person has not wasted valuable judicial time he must earn some credit for that. As a consequence, the accused person is hereby sentenced to serve a period of 30 years imprisonment from the date of arrest.
The appellant has a right of appeal on sentence as to the extent or legality of the same within the next 14 days in line with Section 132 (L) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is so ordered.