https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10874

Republic v Amuoma (Criminal Case 24 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 10874 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10874 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Criminal Case 24 of 2020 JRA Wananda, J July 17, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Samuel Atako Amuoma Accused Sentence 1.The accused person was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on 5/04/2020 at Bondeni village, Mwamba sub-location, in Lugari sub-County within Kakamega County, he murdered one Joseph Muchiri. The accused denied the charges and the matter proceeded to full trial after which, by the Judgment dated 20/06/2025, the accused was found guilty and convicted. 2.During the sentence hearing conducted on 20/06/2026, Prosecution Counsel Ms. Muriithi submitted that there were no previous criminal records for the accused and he could therefore be treated as a first offender. She however pointed out that attack was unprovoked, the death has had a direct impact on the family of the deceased, and that the offence is serious. She then prayed for an “appropriate” sentence. 3.Mr. Ngigi Mbugua, Counsel for the accused, on his part, submitted that the accused is a young man who had just finished college, and that he is sorry and prays for leniency. He then prayed for a non-custodial sentence. 4.I then directed that a pre-Sentence Report be prepared and filed, which was done. The Report, dated 29/10/2025, and prepared by the Probation & Aftercare Service Department, Eldoret, indicates that it was compiled on the basis of information obtained from, inter alia, the Court file, police file, the accused, family members of both the accused and the deceased, neighbours, and also the local administration. Determination 5.The applicable law on sentence for the offence of murder is Section 204 of the Penal Code which stipulates that “any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.” 6.It is now however generally agreed that in spite of the mandatory language employed by the statute, the Courts nonetheless still retain discretion in sentencing. It is on this basis that in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional insofar as it does not allow for consideration of mitigation. 7.In determining sentence, I take into account the said Supreme Court decision in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR) in which it guided that, in sentencing, the following mitigating factors would be applicable; (a) age of the offender; (b) being a first offender; (c) whether the offender pleaded guilty; (d) character and record of the offender; (e) commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence; (f) remorsefulness of the offender; (g) the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender; and, (h) any other factor that the Court considers relevant. 8.Similarly, the Court of Appeal, in the case of Daniel Kipkosgei Letting Vs. Republic [2021] eKLR, pronounced as follows;“With regard to the above, we observe that the purpose and objectives of sentencing as stated in the Judiciary Sentencing policy should be commensurate and proportionate to the crime committed and the manner in which it was committed. The sentencing should be one that meets the end of justice and ensures that the principles of proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation are adhered to. ……..” 9.Further, Majanja J, in quoting Francis Karioko Muruatetu (supra), in the case of Michael Kathewa Laichena & another v Republic [2018] eKLR, stated that:“The Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 (“the Guidelines”) published by the Kenya Judiciary provide a four tier methodology for determination of a custodial sentence. The starting point is establishing the custodial sentence under the applicable statute. Second, consider the mitigating circumstances or circumstances that would lessen the term of the custodial sentence. Third, aggravating circumstances that will go to increase the sentence. Fourth, weigh both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. ………………………………” 10.With the above guidelines in mind, I have considered the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. Regarding the manner in which the accused committed the killing, he is reported to have travelled to visit his uncle’s home but it appears that the deceased was not happy with the visit. It is alluded that the parcel of land in which the home was situated may have been purchased from the family of the deceased, who therefore felt that he still possessed some “say” thereon. It is reported that after several times warning the accused to leave, the deceased left but came back brandishing a rungu and a panga ready to attack the accused, a fight ensued between them during which the accused managed to snatch the panga from the deceased and repeatedly --slashed the deceased with it on the head. The killing does not therefore seem to have been a result of a premeditated act. I say so because the accused was clearly not the initial aggressor but was fighting back an attack laid by the deceased. He, too, is said to have suffered injuries during the fight. I have also taken into account the fact that the accused has been described as a first offender, and his apparent remorse. 11.I have also considered the contents, and recommendations of the Pre-Sentence Report. The salient observations I make therefrom includes that the accused is currently of the relatively young age of 29 years meaning that he was about 23 years at the time of the incident. He is reported to be still single, and that, as a gesture of reconciliation, his uncle gave out some financial token to the family of the deceased. The above are, no doubt, mitigating factors which ought to have a bearing on the sentencing. 12.There are however notable aggravating circumstances. For instance, from the Post Mortem Report, it is clear that the manner in which the accused executed the killing was heinous and cruel. This is confirmed by description of the cause of death as “severe head injury secondary to multiple deep cut wounds on the head”. According to the Report, the deceased suffered “deep cut wounds on the head”, including “on the occiput left ear”, on the frontal area left side and around the left cervical region”, with “several skull brain tissue herniating” thereon. It is therefore evident that the accused cut the deceased repeatedly on the head. In choosing to engage in a physical combat, the accused assumed a foreseeable risk of inflicting grievous, and potentially terminal harm. Although, as aforesaid, it is the deceased who had returned with the panga to attack the deceased but which the accused snatched and cut the deceased with, by cutting the deceased on the head as he did, repeatedly and/or multiple times reportedly even as the deceased had already fallen down and was lying down lifeless, the accused resorted to a degree of violence that was excessive, disproportionate and unnecessary. He deliberately targeted the head of the deceased fully aware that an assault of that nature would have severe impact on a human being. After dispossessing the deceased of the panga, the opportunity to retreat and de-escalate the situation by fleeing the scene remained available to him. By cutting the deceased repeatedly on the head, the accused seems to have been actuated by an acute anger and a desire to “teach the deceased one last lesson. By choosing confrontation over flight, he exercised a fatal error in judgment which ended up with disastrous consequences. Indeed, the pre-Sentence Report indicates that the accused may have been under the influence of alcohol and bhang during the fight, which might have therefore contributed to the high extent of aggression and violence displayed by the accused in his reaction. The Report also alludes that the accused is a “binge drinker and often becomes uncontrollably violent when high in drugs”. These are clear aggravating circumstances that this Court is duty-bound to consider. 13.I also note that in the end, the Report opines that “despite having a medium risk assessment with low probability of re-offending, effective non-custodial supervision is not guaranteed due to the nature of the offence committed”. 14.In the circumstances, I find that a non-custodial sentence would not be appropriate in this case. Through a rash action by the accused to engage in an unnecessary fight, a human life was lost and the Court must reiterate that it is not acceptable to take a human life extra-judicially, even if unintended, whatever the circumstances or level of provocation. I will therefore impose a prison sentence but since I find that the accused has already spent some time in remand custody during the trial, the period that he will serve the sentence shall, in accordance with the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, be mitigated by a consideration of such period already served. Final Orders 15.In circumstances, I make orders as follows:i.I hereby sentence the accused, Samuel Atako Amwoma, to serve eight (8) years imprisonment for the offence of murder.ii.However, in computing the term to be served in prison by the accused, in accordance with the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the following periods already served spent by the accused in custody during the trial, shall be deemed as already served portions of the prison term:a.5/04/2020 (date of arrest) and 15/05/2020 (date of release on bond).b.20/06/2025 (date of conviction) and 3/07/2026 (date of sentence).iii.Right of appeal within 14 days is hereby explained to the accused. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026……………..……..WANANDA JOHN R. ANUROJUDGEDelivered in the presence of:Accused present physically in CourtMs. Langat h/b for Mr. Ngigi Mbugua for the accusedMs. Muriithi for the StateCourt Assistant: Brian Kimathi