The Republic VS KENNEDYNYAMBANE IROBIO The Republic VS KENNEDYNYAMBANE IROBIO

The accused herein, KENNEDY NYAMBANE IROBIO, was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
Through a plea bargain agreement recorded on 4^th July 2024, the charge of murder was reduced to manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. This court entered a plea of guilty to the said charge of manslaughter on the accused’s own plea of guilty after accepting the plea bargain agreement pursuant to Section 137H of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court satisfied itself of the factual basis of the plea agreement and that the accused was competent, of sound mind, and had acted voluntarily at the time of the agreement. The accused was consequently convicted on his own plea of guilty of the offence of manslaughter.
The particulars of the charge were that on 21^st April 2023, at about 5.30 pm at Nyankoba village in Masaba North Sub-County, within Nyamira County, he unlawfully killed Simon Okongo Kennedy.
In Mitigation, Mr. Mong’are advocate for the accused submitted that the accused is an elderly man and was the sole breadwinner for his family comprising of a wife 6 children. He submitted that the accused is remorseful for his actions and added that he is a first offender. He pleaded for a non-custodial sentence.
Mr. Chirchir, Learned Counsel for the State, on his part, confirmed that the accused is a first offender
I have perused the Pre-Sentence Report filed on 2^nd December 2024 which reveals that the deceased was the convict’s own son and that on the fateful day of the killing, the accused found the deceased, who was drunk at the time, beating one of his sisters. The convict intervened in the incident by beating the deceased in an attempt to rescue his daughter. The convict’s intervention, unfortunately, led to the death of the victim. The report also indicates that the convict’s family and community have a positive attitude towards him and are willing to assist him settle back in their midst. It was reported that the convict had no criminal record.
Under section 205 of the Penal Code, manslaughter is punishable by a maximum sentence of life in prison. This is, however, the maximum penalty that is normally reserved for the most serious of such situations. This case does not, in my opinion, fall under the category of the most heinous examples of manslaughter. The Prosecution has stated that the accused is a first-time offender. As a result, I've ruled out life imprisonment.
The starting point in determining the appropriate sentence, in this case, is case law because the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines is silent on the path to be taken in manslaughter cases. In VMK vs. Republic [2015] eKLR the accused was sentenced to 10 years in jail for manslaughter.
In instances where a dangerous weapon is used in the commission of the crime, courts are more likely to sentence the offender to life in prison. The facts of this case do not indicate that the accused used a dangerous weapon. The facts indicate that the accused initially slapped and boxed the deceased on the face before collecting firewood which he used to hit the deceased on the legs with the aim of immobilizing him.
I note that the convict readily pleaded guilty to the offence as one of the factors mitigating his sentence. The English practice of reducing one third of the sentence where the accused pleads guilty has been held to be an appropriate discount. In R vs. Buffrey (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 511 the Court of Appeal in England indicated that while there was no absolute rule as to what the discount should be, as general guidance, the court believed that something of the order of one-third would be an appropriate discount.
Having regard to the convict’s plea of guilty coupled with the fact that the deceased was the convict’s own son, and persuaded by the English practice of reducing sentence by where there is a guilty plea, I find that life imprisonment will not be appropriate in this case. I will, in this regard, consider reducing the sentence by one third from the starting point of ten years to a period of two years’ imprisonment. I find the sentence of two years imprisonment to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
In the case of Republic vs. Daniel Okello Rapuch [2017] eKLR, sentence of 12 months imprisonment was meted out on a man who killed another man on the allegation of being involved in an illicit love affair with his girlfriend.
I am alive to the fact that the accused’s actions, which were purely intended to save his daughter from the attack by the deceased, turned tragic when he ended up killing his own son. The sad reality is that the life of a young man was cut short at the hands of his own father, an eventuality which could have been avoided if the accused had acted with restraint. The pre-sentence report is favorable to an arrangement that enables the accused to rejoin his family.
In the end, I find that a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. The period of two (2) years’ imprisonment is justified in light of the mitigating factors. The accused will live with the guilt of having caused the death of his own son.
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires this court to factor in and deduct the period that the accused spent in remand custody while awaiting his trial from the sentence term. Consequently, I direct that the period spent in custody during the pendency of the trial be deducted from the sentence period.
In view of the foregoing, the accused is hereby sentenced to serve a sentence of (2) two years imprisonment which sentence shall commence on the date of the accused’s arrest being 3^rd May, 2023.
It is so ordered.