SENTENCE
1. The accused person, Peter Kababe Ndege, was convicted by this Court of the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The deceased was Kennedy Oroo Makori alias Obote Kenyatta. The Court found that the deceased died from a stab wound to the heart caused by sharp force trauma, and that the accused was positively linked to the offence through recognition and circumstantial evidence.
2. I have considered the mitigation offered on behalf of the accused, the prosecution’s indication that he has no previous criminal record, the pre-sentence report filed by the Probation and Aftercare Services, and the views of the victim’s family as captured in that report. The Criminal Procedure Code permits the Court, before sentence, to receive evidence necessary to inform itself on the proper sentence, including reports and victim impact material where appropriate.
3. The offence of murder remains a grave offence. Section 204 of the Penal Code prescribes the death sentence for murder; however, the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic declared the mandatory nature of the death sentence under section 204 unconstitutional, while confirming that the death penalty itself was not abolished. The Court therefore retains discretion to impose an appropriate and proportionate sentence after considering the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
4. In sentencing, the Court is guided by the objectives of sentencing, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, denunciation, reconciliation and reintegration. The Revised Sentencing Policy Guidelines also identify relevant mitigating factors such as age, first-offender status, remorse, possibility of reform, and time already spent in custody.
5. The aggravating factors are that a life was lost; the accused used a lethal weapon; the deceased was stabbed on a vital part of the body, namely the chest/heart; and the deceased’s family has suffered emotional and economic hardship, especially because the deceased was reported to have been the sole breadwinner. The Court has also noted that the accused’s account, as captured in the pre-sentence report, reflects only partial acceptance of responsibility, and that the community remains hostile towards him. The latter factor is not used to increase punishment, but it is relevant in determining whether a non-custodial sentence is appropriate.
6. The mitigating factors are that the accused is a first offender, aged about 56 years, has a family support system, expressed remorse, and the offence appears to have arisen from an alcohol-related confrontation . I have also considered the possibility of rehabilitation, particularly through substance-abuse counselling, anger management and conflict-resolution programmes.
7. Having weighed all the circumstances, I find that a non-custodial sentence is wholly unsuitable. The offence resulted in the loss of life and the pre-sentence report recommends a custodial sentence with structured rehabilitation interventions. However, considering the accused’s age, lack of previous criminal record, family support, and the apparent absence of elaborate premeditation, I am not persuaded that the death sentence or life imprisonment is the proportionate sentence in this case.
8. I therefore sentence the accused, Peter Kababe Ndege, to serve twenty-five (25) years’ imprisonment.
9. Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the period already spent in lawful custody shall be taken into account. The sentence shall therefore be computed from 29th December 2023, being the date he was first remanded in custody, till completion.
10. The accused has a right of appeal against both conviction and sentence within the time prescribed by law.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
18.6.26
Delivered virtually on this 18th day of June 2026 in the presence of the accused, Miss Gogi for the accused. Mr Koima and Court Assistant Kipchirchir .
Order : Proceedings and judgment be supplied to the convict
1. The accused person, Peter Kababe Ndege, was convicted by this Court of the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The deceased was Kennedy Oroo Makori alias Obote Kenyatta. The Court found that the deceased died from a stab wound to the heart caused by sharp force trauma, and that the accused was positively linked to the offence through recognition and circumstantial evidence.
2. I have considered the mitigation offered on behalf of the accused, the prosecution’s indication that he has no previous criminal record, the pre-sentence report filed by the Probation and Aftercare Services, and the views of the victim’s family as captured in that report. The Criminal Procedure Code permits the Court, before sentence, to receive evidence necessary to inform itself on the proper sentence, including reports and victim impact material where appropriate.
3. The offence of murder remains a grave offence. Section 204 of the Penal Code prescribes the death sentence for murder; however, the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic declared the mandatory nature of the death sentence under section 204 unconstitutional, while confirming that the death penalty itself was not abolished. The Court therefore retains discretion to impose an appropriate and proportionate sentence after considering the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
4. In sentencing, the Court is guided by the objectives of sentencing, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, denunciation, reconciliation and reintegration. The Revised Sentencing Policy Guidelines also identify relevant mitigating factors such as age, first-offender status, remorse, possibility of reform, and time already spent in custody.
5. The aggravating factors are that a life was lost; the accused used a lethal weapon; the deceased was stabbed on a vital part of the body, namely the chest/heart; and the deceased’s family has suffered emotional and economic hardship, especially because the deceased was reported to have been the sole breadwinner. The Court has also noted that the accused’s account, as captured in the pre-sentence report, reflects only partial acceptance of responsibility, and that the community remains hostile towards him. The latter factor is not used to increase punishment, but it is relevant in determining whether a non-custodial sentence is appropriate.
6. The mitigating factors are that the accused is a first offender, aged about 56 years, has a family support system, expressed remorse, and the offence appears to have arisen from an alcohol-related confrontation . I have also considered the possibility of rehabilitation, particularly through substance-abuse counselling, anger management and conflict-resolution programmes.
7. Having weighed all the circumstances, I find that a non-custodial sentence is wholly unsuitable. The offence resulted in the loss of life and the pre-sentence report recommends a custodial sentence with structured rehabilitation interventions. However, considering the accused’s age, lack of previous criminal record, family support, and the apparent absence of elaborate premeditation, I am not persuaded that the death sentence or life imprisonment is the proportionate sentence in this case.
8. I therefore sentence the accused, Peter Kababe Ndege, to serve twenty-five (25) years’ imprisonment.
9. Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the period already spent in lawful custody shall be taken into account. The sentence shall therefore be computed from 29th December 2023, being the date he was first remanded in custody, till completion.
10. The accused has a right of appeal against both conviction and sentence within the time prescribed by law.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
18.6.26
Delivered virtually on this 18th day of June 2026 in the presence of the accused, Miss Gogi for the accused. Mr Koima and Court Assistant Kipchirchir .
Order : Proceedings and judgment be supplied to the convict