REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
HCCRC NO. E003 OF 2024
REPUBLIC………………….……………………..…………….. PROSECUTION
VERSUS
SAMUEL KAMOI CHESIRE …………………………………….… ACCUSED
RULING ON SENTENCE
1) The accused SAMUEL KAMOI CHESIRE was charged with Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal, Code. The particulars of the charge were that on 22 nd March 2024 at Heritage near National Oil filing station within Kabarnet township in Baringo County, murdered one Sammy Boit Kiprop.
2) The matter was heard by Ngetich J as then was and on 11/3/2026 the accused was found guilty of the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal Code.
3) The accused person is liable to a sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to section 205 of the Penal Code.
4) Pursuant to section 200(2) as read with section 201(2) – it is my duty to make out a sentence to the accused.
5) I called for Presentence Report from PACs. It was filed on 26/5/2026.
6) During the sentence and mitigation hearing I heard submissions from Mr Koech for the State, and Mr Chebii for the accused person. Mr. Koech, reiterated the broad objectives of sentence – Retribution, Deterrence and Rehabilitation, Community protection and contended that a custodial sentence would meet all these objectives. He referred the court to Muruatetu I for the submissions that courts must balance both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in arriving at a sentence.
7) He referred the court to R vs Korir, CR 10/2025 [2026] KEHC 5408 KLR where the offender was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
8) Referring to the facts of the case and the victim impact statement in the Presentence Report – he submitted that both the accused and the deceased had taken alcohol and were intoxicated – he submitted that there had not been sufficient compensation for consideration of a non-custodial sentence ; that the family of accused had paid that of the deceased the sum of Ksh 26000/= and that was madharau .
9) He urged the court to mete out the sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
10) Mr Chebii for the accused opposed the said sentence. He urged the court to look at the proceedings and the court would find out that death was as a result of a freak incident that the 2 were great friends who would go to “ kutoa lock ” together – it was contended that the deceased had pre-existing condition that was not revealed to court.
11) It was submitted that the accused was remorseful, 1 st offender that the reconciliation talks could not be concluded while he was in custody and that the total of Ksh. 32000 had been paid. That the 32000/= was considered to be a cow within the traditions of the community and once this was paid that was sufficient mitigation.
12) He urged the court to assign a non-custodial sentence of 3 years.
13) the Accused added that he had sent elders with Ksh. 40,000/=.
14) The prosecution requested the court to hear the mother of the victim one Nancy Kobilo who was in court. She denied that any talks had been held but that Ksh 26000 had been given to them. She said the death of deceased had impacted on her grandchildren – whom she had to raise by herself. She expressed the view that the family of the accused was not serious about negotiations. The deceased’s’ sister Gladys Boit supported her mother’s submissions.
15) So, what would be appropriate sentence? The factors to be considered are set out in Judiciary sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 at paragraph 5 .
16) Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that a court may before passing sentence receive such evidence as it thinks fit to inform itself of the proper sentence to be passed
17) I have perused the Presentence Report – the PACs Officer after concluding social inquiry established that the offender a 48 year old 1 st offender who was not a threat to the family of the deceased or society ; suitable for the non-custodial sentence of Probation supervision. The report pointed out that the only thing that was trouble with accused was alcohol – the same alcohol that led to the disagreement that caused the death of deceased.
18) I note that the family of the deceased and the prosecution take the position that monetary compensation on the part of the accused/lack thereof should determine whether or not the accused to serves a custodial sentence. I am taken a back by that position. While reconciliation of those involved is the best outcome of a dispute – it cannot be bound with money – no amount can be equated to the life of the deceased.
19) The law – the Penal Code does not envision that any term of imprisonment will be conditioned on the amount of money the offender pays to the family of the deceased as compensation. that would have an unjust outcome in the end – as those able to pay only for the most heinous crimes could get away from their due punishment.
20) The issue of compensation should not be placed out there as a condition for a non-custodial sentence , that is misleading and should not be encouraged. DPP and PACs should be at the forefront to educate the litigants that compensation is a good thin as part of reconciliation but in the criminal process it is not mandatory unless ordered by the court. it should never be seen as a way of buying ones freedom from the penalty of a serious offence.
21) The sentence will depend on the circumstances of the offence – the mitigating and aggravating circumstances but will not be determined by whether or not compensation has been paid.
22) True, many communities have traditional cleansing and restitution rites and processes when a person kills another – they also have traditional/customary ways for compensation that serve specific purposes. However the court cannot , in a criminal matter allow the sentence to be monetized .
23) Section 329C provides for victim impact statements It states:
When victim impact statements may be received and considered
(1) If it considers it appropriate to do so, a court may receive and consider a victim impact statement at any time after it convicts, but before it sentences, an offender.
(2) If the primary victim has died as a direct result of the offence, the court shall receive a victim impact statement given by a family victim and acknowledge its receipt, and may make any comment on it that the court considers appropriate.
(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the court—
(a) shall not consider a victim impact statement unless it has been filed by or on behalf of the victim to whom it relates or by or on behalf of the prosecutor; and
(b) shall not consider a victim impact statement given by a family victim in connection with the determination of the punishment for the offence unless it considers that it is appropriate to do so.
24) The court is prohibited from considering the victim impact statement given by a family victim – in the determination of the punishment for the offence – unless it considers that it is appropriate to do so
25) I have read the Judgment. At paragraph 10 to 20 it sets out the circumstances that rendered the offence to be reduced to manslaughter .
26) Cleary there was no malice aforethought, the 2 were intoxicated, there was no grudge – and the deceased did have a previous condition which was conceded by the family and which appears to have been aggravated by the single kick from the accused.
27) These are not circumstances that would warrant a long custodial sentence – there was no malice aforethought, these were 2 friends, who disagreed – and the kick happened – and death followed. This is a case that calls for what the PACS Officer is saying – continuous talks on how to deal with the situation that found both the accused, and the family of the deceased.
28) A presentence report is not binding – it is persuasive
29) Reading the Judgment of Ngetich J, taking into account the Judiciary Sentncing Policy Guidelines 2023, the onjectives of sentencing and the need to encourage the restitution and restoration of relations, this is one of those cases.
30) I am persuaded that the recommendation by the PACS will address these issues effectively : The Report concludes;
Considering that the offender is remorseful, ready to reconcile with the victim’s family and assist the victims children and also considering that he is not a threat to the victim’s family and the circumstances surrounding the offence, I recommend that he be committed to serve Probation order for a period of three years.
Supervision plan
The PACs office commits to the following :
a) Assist the two families through family conference to continue with reconciliation efforts already initiated by the offenders family,
b) Assist the offender deal with alcohol problem,
c) Provide guidance and counselling.
d) Initiative victim support through guidance and counseling and referrals.
e) Refer the victim’s children to children’s department for education support through orphans support program if they will be willing.
f) Provide routine supervision to ensure he abide by any other order by the court.
31) In the circumstances I order that the accused person be placed on Probation Supervision for three years with effect from the date of this Ruling .
32) The Probation order to include the commitment by PACS (a) to (f).
33) The accused person to commit to collaborate with PACs during the supervision.
34) The matter be mentioned quarterly before the DR and as advised by PACS for progress reports with the first mention within three months of this order.
35) Orders accordingly
RULING dated, signed and delivered virtually at Kabarnet High Court this 3 rd July 2026.
MUMBUA T MATHEKA
JUDGE
In the presence of :-
CA Momanyi/Gladys
Accused
Mr. Chebii for Accused
Ms. Kosgei for State
RULING on Sentence HCCRC NO. E003/2024 Page 7 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
HCCRC NO. E003 OF 2024
REPUBLIC………………….……………………..…………….. PROSECUTION
VERSUS
SAMUEL KAMOI CHESIRE …………………………………….… ACCUSED
RULING ON SENTENCE
1) The accused SAMUEL KAMOI CHESIRE was charged with Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal, Code. The particulars of the charge were that on 22 nd March 2024 at Heritage near National Oil filing station within Kabarnet township in Baringo County, murdered one Sammy Boit Kiprop.
2) The matter was heard by Ngetich J as then was and on 11/3/2026 the accused was found guilty of the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal Code.
3) The accused person is liable to a sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to section 205 of the Penal Code.
4) Pursuant to section 200(2) as read with section 201(2) – it is my duty to make out a sentence to the accused.
5) I called for Presentence Report from PACs. It was filed on 26/5/2026.
6) During the sentence and mitigation hearing I heard submissions from Mr Koech for the State, and Mr Chebii for the accused person. Mr. Koech, reiterated the broad objectives of sentence – Retribution, Deterrence and Rehabilitation, Community protection and contended that a custodial sentence would meet all these objectives. He referred the court to Muruatetu I for the submissions that courts must balance both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in arriving at a sentence.
7) He referred the court to R vs Korir, CR 10/2025 [2026] KEHC 5408 KLR where the offender was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
8) Referring to the facts of the case and the victim impact statement in the Presentence Report – he submitted that both the accused and the deceased had taken alcohol and were intoxicated – he submitted that there had not been sufficient compensation for consideration of a non-custodial sentence ; that the family of accused had paid that of the deceased the sum of Ksh 26000/= and that was madharau .
9) He urged the court to mete out the sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
10) Mr Chebii for the accused opposed the said sentence. He urged the court to look at the proceedings and the court would find out that death was as a result of a freak incident that the 2 were great friends who would go to “ kutoa lock ” together – it was contended that the deceased had pre-existing condition that was not revealed to court.
11) It was submitted that the accused was remorseful, 1 st offender that the reconciliation talks could not be concluded while he was in custody and that the total of Ksh. 32000 had been paid. That the 32000/= was considered to be a cow within the traditions of the community and once this was paid that was sufficient mitigation.
12) He urged the court to assign a non-custodial sentence of 3 years.
13) the Accused added that he had sent elders with Ksh. 40,000/=.
14) The prosecution requested the court to hear the mother of the victim one Nancy Kobilo who was in court. She denied that any talks had been held but that Ksh 26000 had been given to them. She said the death of deceased had impacted on her grandchildren – whom she had to raise by herself. She expressed the view that the family of the accused was not serious about negotiations. The deceased’s’ sister Gladys Boit supported her mother’s submissions.
15) So, what would be appropriate sentence? The factors to be considered are set out in Judiciary sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 at paragraph 5 .
16) Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that a court may before passing sentence receive such evidence as it thinks fit to inform itself of the proper sentence to be passed
17) I have perused the Presentence Report – the PACs Officer after concluding social inquiry established that the offender a 48 year old 1 st offender who was not a threat to the family of the deceased or society ; suitable for the non-custodial sentence of Probation supervision. The report pointed out that the only thing that was trouble with accused was alcohol – the same alcohol that led to the disagreement that caused the death of deceased.
18) I note that the family of the deceased and the prosecution take the position that monetary compensation on the part of the accused/lack thereof should determine whether or not the accused to serves a custodial sentence. I am taken a back by that position. While reconciliation of those involved is the best outcome of a dispute – it cannot be bound with money – no amount can be equated to the life of the deceased.
19) The law – the Penal Code does not envision that any term of imprisonment will be conditioned on the amount of money the offender pays to the family of the deceased as compensation. that would have an unjust outcome in the end – as those able to pay only for the most heinous crimes could get away from their due punishment.
20) The issue of compensation should not be placed out there as a condition for a non-custodial sentence , that is misleading and should not be encouraged. DPP and PACs should be at the forefront to educate the litigants that compensation is a good thin as part of reconciliation but in the criminal process it is not mandatory unless ordered by the court. it should never be seen as a way of buying ones freedom from the penalty of a serious offence.
21) The sentence will depend on the circumstances of the offence – the mitigating and aggravating circumstances but will not be determined by whether or not compensation has been paid.
22) True, many communities have traditional cleansing and restitution rites and processes when a person kills another – they also have traditional/customary ways for compensation that serve specific purposes. However the court cannot , in a criminal matter allow the sentence to be monetized .
23) Section 329C provides for victim impact statements It states:
When victim impact statements may be received and considered
(1) If it considers it appropriate to do so, a court may receive and consider a victim impact statement at any time after it convicts, but before it sentences, an offender.
(2) If the primary victim has died as a direct result of the offence, the court shall receive a victim impact statement given by a family victim and acknowledge its receipt, and may make any comment on it that the court considers appropriate.
(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the court—
(a) shall not consider a victim impact statement unless it has been filed by or on behalf of the victim to whom it relates or by or on behalf of the prosecutor; and
(b) shall not consider a victim impact statement given by a family victim in connection with the determination of the punishment for the offence unless it considers that it is appropriate to do so.
24) The court is prohibited from considering the victim impact statement given by a family victim – in the determination of the punishment for the offence – unless it considers that it is appropriate to do so
25) I have read the Judgment. At paragraph 10 to 20 it sets out the circumstances that rendered the offence to be reduced to manslaughter .
26) Cleary there was no malice aforethought, the 2 were intoxicated, there was no grudge – and the deceased did have a previous condition which was conceded by the family and which appears to have been aggravated by the single kick from the accused.
27) These are not circumstances that would warrant a long custodial sentence – there was no malice aforethought, these were 2 friends, who disagreed – and the kick happened – and death followed. This is a case that calls for what the PACS Officer is saying – continuous talks on how to deal with the situation that found both the accused, and the family of the deceased.
28) A presentence report is not binding – it is persuasive
29) Reading the Judgment of Ngetich J, taking into account the Judiciary Sentncing Policy Guidelines 2023, the onjectives of sentencing and the need to encourage the restitution and restoration of relations, this is one of those cases.
30) I am persuaded that the recommendation by the PACS will address these issues effectively : The Report concludes;
Considering that the offender is remorseful, ready to reconcile with the victim’s family and assist the victims children and also considering that he is not a threat to the victim’s family and the circumstances surrounding the offence, I recommend that he be committed to serve Probation order for a period of three years.
Supervision plan
The PACs office commits to the following :
a) Assist the two families through family conference to continue with reconciliation efforts already initiated by the offenders family,
b) Assist the offender deal with alcohol problem,
c) Provide guidance and counselling.
d) Initiative victim support through guidance and counseling and referrals.
e) Refer the victim’s children to children’s department for education support through orphans support program if they will be willing.
f) Provide routine supervision to ensure he abide by any other order by the court.
31) In the circumstances I order that the accused person be placed on Probation Supervision for three years with effect from the date of this Ruling .
32) The Probation order to include the commitment by PACS (a) to (f).
33) The accused person to commit to collaborate with PACs during the supervision.
34) The matter be mentioned quarterly before the DR and as advised by PACS for progress reports with the first mention within three months of this order.
35) Orders accordingly
RULING dated, signed and delivered virtually at Kabarnet High Court this 3 rd July 2026.
MUMBUA T MATHEKA
JUDGE
In the presence of :-
CA Momanyi/Gladys
Accused
Mr. Chebii for Accused
Ms. Kosgei for State
RULING on Sentence HCCRC NO. E003/2024 Page 7 of 7