https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8749

Republic v Atetwe (Criminal Case 15 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 8749 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8749 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Criminal Case 15 of 2020 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 23, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Denis Atetwe Accused Sentence 1.The Accused, Dennis Atetwe was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on 24th day of July 2020 at Savana Club, Kapkwen Sub location in Bomet Central Sub County within Bomet County, he murdered Leonard Koech. 2.The Accused took plea on 3rd November 2020 and pleaded not guilty to the offence. 3.Plea Bargaining Agreement was filed in court on 20th November,2025 was filed in court and it indicated that the Accused had agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter. 4.On 24th November, 2025 this court accepted the Plea Agreement after interviewing the Accused and satisfying itself that he executed the Plea Agreement voluntarily. 5.On the same day (24th November, 2025), the Accused took plea for the offence of manslaughter. The charge and every element thereof was read and explained to him in the Kiswahili language which he understood and he pleaded guilty. The court entered a plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter. 6.The facts as read by the Prosecutor and captured in the Plea Agreement are as follows:-On the 24th day of July, 2020 the deceased one Leonard Koech was taking beer at Savanna Club within Kapkwen market with his brother George Koech and being served by D-1 one Lilian Imali up to around 0900hours when George Koech left. D2-the owner of the bar closed the premises at around 0920hours. The deceased asked D1(Lilian Imali) to look for a private room so that they can have a rest as they continue taking their beers. The deceased one Leonard Koech and D1 one Lilian Imali entered into a private room and continued taking their beers.The deceased one Leonard Koech and D-1 one Lilian Imali entered into a private room and continued taking their beers. Unfortunately, they forgot to lock the door and after a short period the husband to D-1(Lilian Imali) one Denis Atetwe now accused pushed to door and found the two copulating. The accused Denis Atetwe while armed with a knife, stabbed the deceased severally. Later the said knife was recovered by the investigating officers and kept as exhibit.The deceased was rushed to Longisa County Referral Hospital where he succumbed to injuries.An autopsy was conducted at Longisa County Referral Hospital Morgue by one Dr. Nickson Mutai who formed an opinion that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding secondary to assault with a sharp object. 7.The Accused accepted the facts as true and the court convicted him on his own guilty plea for the lesser offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. Pre-Sentence Report 8.The report stated that the Accused was repentant and regretted the offence as he had no intention of killing the deceased. He prayed for non-custodial sentence since he had converted to pastor and was currently ministering to fellow inmates. Victim Impact Statement 9.The Victim’s family recommended strict measures to be meted against the accused. They maintain that a non-custodial sentence would only reopen their wounds and undermine their sense of justice. Accused’s Mitigation 10.On mitigation, the accused stated that he was remorseful and regretted the circumstances under which he committed the offence. He understood well the seriousness of the offence and was well aware of the consequences that come along with it. He prayed for a non-custodial sentence. Submissions by the State 11.Ms. Judith Chepchirchir the learned Prosecution Counsel submitted that the court in determining the sentence for the offence consider the aggravating circumstances of the death of the deceased. The deceased Leonard Koech sustained fatal injuries after he was stabbed severally with a knife by the accused person. That the accused person intended to cause harm to the deceased. The state submits that the accused person be punished justly. This will discourage the offender and others from committing similar crimes. 12.Further, the learned prosecution counsel stated that the deceased’s family and the community at large were affected by the incident. That life, once snuffed out was irrecoverable. The accused person must take responsibility for his actions and understand their impact. 13.Finally, the state prayed for a proportionate and just sentence for the accused person which would also ensure that the family of the deceased receive justice. 14.Sentencing serves multiple purposes as enumerated in the Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 which outline the objectives of sentencing at paragraph 1.3.1 as follows:-Sentences are imposed to meet the following objectives. There will be instances in which the objectives may conflict with each other- in so far as possible, sentences imposed should be geared towards meeting the objectives in totality.i.Retribution.ii.Deterrence.iii.Rehabilitation.iv.Restorative justice.v.Community Protection.vi.Denunciation.vii.Reconciliation.viii.Reintegration. 15.The penal section for the offence of manslaughter is contained in section 205 of the Penal Code which provides:-Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. 16.I have considered the circumstances of the case, the pre-sentence report. I have also considered the Accused’s mitigation that he was remorseful and regretted the event. 17.The Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 at paragraph 2.3.15 lists the factors that a court should consider when deciding to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence. They are as follows:-i.Gravity of the offence: In the absence of aggravating circumstances, or any other circumstance that renders a non-custodial sentence unsuitable, a sentence of imprisonment should be avoided with respect to sentences that have been adjudged as deserving less than three (3) years.ii.Criminal history of the offender: Taking into account the seriousness of the offence, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentences except where the seriousness of the offence crosses the custody threshold (where the offence is so serious that neither a fine or community sentence can be justified).iii.Children in conflict with the law: Generally speaking, non-custodial orders should be imposed as a matter of course in the case of children in conflict with the law. The exception to this is in circumstances where in light of the seriousness of the offence, coupled with other factors, the court is satisfied that a custodial order is the most appropriate and would be in the child’s best interest. Custodial orders should only be meted out as a measure of last resort and in accordance with the guidance provided under section 239 of the Children’s Act, 2022. The court shall also issue post-committal supervision orders upon completion of the committal orders or the attainment of the age of majority where it is appropriate to so do in light of the nature of the offence and circumstances of the offender.iv.Conduct of the offender: Non-custodial sentences are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.v.Protection of the community: Where there is evidence that the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community, a custodial sentence may be more appropriate. The probation officer’s reports should inform the court of the risk posed by the offender to the community in order to inform sentencing.vi.Offender’s responsibility to third parties: Where committing an offender to a custodial sentence is likely to unduly prejudice others, particularly vulnerable persons who depend on them, a court should consider if, in light of the nature and seriousness of the offence, the objectives of sentencing can be met with a non-custodial sentence. The court should enquire into the offender’s personal circumstances and, where appropriate, seek the assistance of a pre-sentence report. 18.This is also in compliance with Article 159 of the Constitution in as far as alternative dispute resolution is concerned and timely resolution of matters. 19.Flowing from the above, it is my finding that the circumstances of the case and the nature of the deceased’s death warranted the Accused to serve a custodial sentence. 20.In the end, the Accused, Dennis Atetwe is sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment. The sentence to run from the date accused was first arraigned in court for plea taking that is on 3rd November, 2020. Right of appeal 14 days. JUDGEMENT DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026.........................J.K.NG’ARNG’ARJUDGEJudgement delivered in the presence of:Siele/Susan (Court Assistants)Ms Koech for the stateMr Leteipa for the Accused