https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8751

Republic v Bett & another (Criminal Case E011 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8751 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8751 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Criminal Case E011 of 2023 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 23, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Zephania Bett 1st Accused Evelyne Cheruiyot 2nd Accused Sentence 1.The Accused, Zephania Bett and Evelyne Cheruiyot were 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 30th May 2023 at Kimaya Sub Location in Chepalungu Sub County within Bomet County, they jointly murdered Joseph Cheruiyot. 2.The Accused took plea on 27th June, 2023 and pleaded not guilty to the offence. 3.Plea Bargaining Agreement was filed on 25th September, 2025 was filed in court and it indicated that the 1st Accused (Zephania Bett) 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 1st Accused and satisfying itself that he executed the Plea Agreement voluntarily. 5.On the same day (24th November, 2025), the 1st 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 30th May, 2023 the deceased Joseph Cheruiyot arrived home at around 2100hours while drunk. He found his wife Evelyne Chepngetich E2 who gave him supper then he went to sleep in the main house. E2 remained in the kitchen with her granddaughter Maureen Chepkoech 8 years old. Shortly thereafter E1 Zephania Bett arrived. E1 is the deceased’s son. He together with E2 (Evelyne Chepngetich) then followed the deceased to his bedroom where he was sleeping and strangled him to death. They then dressed the deceased with a jacket, shoes and cap. They pulled him outside where E1 lifted the deceased onto his shoulder and took him to the dam. Upon arrival at the dam, he removed the jacket, shoes and cap and threw the body to the dam. He then went back home.On the morning of 31stMay, 2023 the body of the deceased Joseph Cheruiyot was found by members of the public floating in the dam. They informed police officers from Olbutyo polices station who helped retrieve the body and it was taken to Longisa Mortuary. Post mortem was conducted and the cause of death was strangulation. E1 and E2 were then arrested and charged. 7.The 1st 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 remorseful and regretted the offence as he had no intention of killing the deceased. He prays for leniency from the Honourable court. 9.The report stated that a meeting with the local community was convened to discuss the offender’s fate and it recommended strict measures to be meted against him. That the community was not ready to receive the 1st Accused because the pain was still fresh. Victim Impact Statement. 10.The Victim’s family recommended strict measures to be meted against him. They were not ready to receive him now because the pain was still fresh. Accused’s Mitigation 11.On mitigation, the 1st Accused stated that he was remorseful and regretted the circumstances under which he committed the offence. That 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 12.Ms. Judith Chepchirchir the learned Prosecution Counsel submitted that the fact that the Accused agreed to save the court’s time by pleading to a lesser charge of manslaughter, should not vitiate the harm he caused to the society by killing a fellow human being. She further submitted that the 1st accused person be sentenced to life imprisonment. 13.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. 14.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. 15.I have considered the circumstances of the case and the pre-sentence report. I have also considered the Accused’s mitigation that he was remorseful and regretted the event. 16.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. 17.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. 18.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. 19.In the end, the 1st Accused, Zephania Bett is sentenced to serve 18 years imprisonment. The sentence to run from the date accused was first arraigned in court for plea taking that is on 27th June, 2023. 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 stateAccused in person BOMET HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. E011 OF 2023. JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE 0