'
The convict was charged herein with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code .
The matter proceeded for hearing and judgment was delivered on 15.3.2019. The convict was convicted and he was sentenced him to suffer death .
The convict moved the court of appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2017. The conviction was upheld and the Court of appeal referred this matter back for re-sentencing considering the Muruatetu case.
The convict appeared for Mitigation on 26.6.25 , Miss Nyaata Pro-bono advocate for the convict submitted that the is aged 29 , he is remorseful has been in prison from the 2017 and he reformed and learnt life skills. Further that he was a close friend to deceased and that he acted out of self defence . This called for pre-sentence report , the same indicates that the convict is 29 years old . this was a crime of passion as the offender and deceased were lovers and the offender discovered that she was cheating on his and hence the unfortunate incident. The report indicates that the community is ready to embrace the offender and his family and that of the deceased have reconciled . he is now aged about 29 years old which mean he was I his teens when he committed the offence . The report recommended sentence review .Counsel sought a non- custodial sentence for the convict.
The state submitted that the circumstances of the offence called for a custodial sentence.
In the case of FRANCIS KARIOKO MURUATETU AND ANOTHER VERSUS REPUBLIC (2017) eKLR AND MURUATETU (2) OF 2021. That, courts have discretionary powers to impose sentences considering the peculiar circumstances of each case.
Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code provides thus:
[2] Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.
Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection [1[ has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.
DETERMINATION
I have considered the nature of the offence , mitigation its circumstances , the current age of the offender and his teenage at the material time and the period of about 10 years served by the offender , the pre-sentence review report and the remand period . An innocent life was lost in this case. A non -custodial sentence would not be in the interest of justice as rightly submitted by the learned prosecution counsel .
I proceed to re-sentence the offender to 20 years imprisonment . The same to run from 5.9.2014 when he was first remanded till completion .
14 days Right of Appeal .
Delivered and Signed at Kisii this 9 th day of September 2025 in the presence of Applicant , Mr Koima for prosecution . Miss Nyaata for accused and CA -Kipchirchir
'
The convict was charged herein with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code .
The matter proceeded for hearing and judgment was delivered on 15.3.2019. The convict was convicted and he was sentenced him to suffer death .
The convict moved the court of appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2017. The conviction was upheld and the Court of appeal referred this matter back for re-sentencing considering the Muruatetu case.
The convict appeared for Mitigation on 26.6.25 , Miss Nyaata Pro-bono advocate for the convict submitted that the is aged 29 , he is remorseful has been in prison from the 2017 and he reformed and learnt life skills. Further that he was a close friend to deceased and that he acted out of self defence . This called for pre-sentence report , the same indicates that the convict is 29 years old . this was a crime of passion as the offender and deceased were lovers and the offender discovered that she was cheating on his and hence the unfortunate incident. The report indicates that the community is ready to embrace the offender and his family and that of the deceased have reconciled . he is now aged about 29 years old which mean he was I his teens when he committed the offence . The report recommended sentence review .Counsel sought a non- custodial sentence for the convict.
The state submitted that the circumstances of the offence called for a custodial sentence.
In the case of FRANCIS KARIOKO MURUATETU AND ANOTHER VERSUS REPUBLIC (2017) eKLR AND MURUATETU (2) OF 2021. That, courts have discretionary powers to impose sentences considering the peculiar circumstances of each case.
Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code provides thus:
[2] Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.
Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection [1[ has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.
DETERMINATION
I have considered the nature of the offence , mitigation its circumstances , the current age of the offender and his teenage at the material time and the period of about 10 years served by the offender , the pre-sentence review report and the remand period . An innocent life was lost in this case. A non -custodial sentence would not be in the interest of justice as rightly submitted by the learned prosecution counsel .
I proceed to re-sentence the offender to 20 years imprisonment . The same to run from 5.9.2014 when he was first remanded till completion .
14 days Right of Appeal .
Delivered and Signed at Kisii this 9 th day of September 2025 in the presence of Applicant , Mr Koima for prosecution . Miss Nyaata for accused and CA -Kipchirchir
'