https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7331

Kibaara alias Karish v Republic (Criminal Case E016 of 1000) [2026] KEHC 7331 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7331 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Criminal Case E016 of 1000 RL Korir, J May 26, 2026 Between Silvester Gitonga Kibaara alias Karish Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Silvester Gitonga Kibaara (Accused) was charged, tried and convicted vide a judgement dated 20th February 2025 of the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The victim of the offence was one Japhet Mureithi Kieti. 2.In convicting the Accused, the court (Gitari J) found that he armed himself with a panga which was concealed under his shirt sought out the deceased in a drinking place and cut him on the neck and hand and was seen wiping the blood from his panga before escaping. 3.At the sentencing hearing on 23rd July 2025, defence Counsel Ms. Kijaru made submissions in mitigation. She stated that the Accused was 45 years old and a father of 3 children. That he was remorseful and his quick anger led to the loss of his friend. She submitted that the Accused was remorseful and prayed for leniency and a lenient sentence. Counsel further stated that the Accused had been in custody for 2 years and 11 months and prayed for a non-custodial sentence. 4.Learned Prosecution Counsel submitted that the Accused went through a full trial and was convicted. That the deceased was 28 years and at the prime of his life and there was no indication that he had a family. Counsel urged the court to consider that the murder was most foul as the Accused had armed himself and assaulted the deceased with a panga cutting him multiple times. She urged the court to grant a deterrent custodial sentence. 5.A pre-sentence probation report was filed in court on 17th March, 2025. It states that the Accused was 45 years and has three children but had separated with his wife at the time of his arrest. The report further states that interviews with the Accused’s family members and local community revealed that he was short-tempered and given to irrational violence. 6.With respect to the victim impact statement, the report states that the deceased’s parents and particularly the father were still grieving the loss of their loved one. That they were also aggrieved that the Accused’s family never attempted any reconciliation and there exists bad blood between them. They were of the view that the Accused be given a severe sentence. 7.Sentencing serves multiple purposes as stated in the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines (2014). They include;i.Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.ii.Deterrence: to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.iii.Rehabilitation: to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law abiding person.iv.Restorative justice: to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages.v.Community protection: to protect the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation: to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct. 8.In Thomas Mwambu Wenyi Vs Republic (2017) eKLR, the Court of Appeal cited the decision of the supreme court of India in Alister Anthony Pereira Vs State of Mahareshtra at paragraph 70-71 where the court aptly summarized the objectives and principles of sentencing in the following words:-“Sentencing is an important task in the matter of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straight jacket formula for sentencing an accused person on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstance of each case and the courts must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurispendence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence.” [Underline mine] 9.I have considered the respective submissions of the parties in mitigation. I have also considered the pre-sentence probation report. It was clear to this court that the Accused was remorseful and regretted his rash action. The court record also shows that he had expressed a willingness to plea bargain when first arraigned and that his request was not accepted by the State. 10.The role of the court however is to serve justice to both parties. I have not found any cogent reason why the Accused would arm himself and cause loss of the life of another. Such conduct must be punished. 11.I have considered that though he was earlier granted bond, the Accused remained in pre-trial custody. 12.Section 205 of the Penal Code provides:-“205 Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life.” 13.In the end, the Accused is sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment. The sentence shall be deemed to run from 25th August 2022 being the date of his pre-trial custody. 14.The Accused has a 14 days’ right of appeal against both conviction and sentence.Orders accordingly. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026...........................R. LAGAT-KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of Ms Kijaru for the Accused and Ms Rukunga for the State; Muriuki (Court Assistant)