https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8673

Republic v Bett & another (Criminal Case E005 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 8673 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8673 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Criminal Case E005 of 2022 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 22, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Nicholas Kiprotich Bett 1st Accused Anthony Langat Korir 2nd Accused Judgment 1.The Accused, Nicholas Kiprotich Bett and Anthony Langat Korir 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 16th March 2022 at Kamosogo Sub-Location, Bomet Central Sub-County within Bomet County, they murdered Victor Kirui. 2.The Accused took plea on 13th July 2022 where they pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. 1st Accused 3.A Plea-Bargaining Agreement dated 18th December 2025 it indicated that the 1st Accused had agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter. This court accepted the Plea Agreement after interviewing the Accused and satisfying itself that he executed the Plea Agreement voluntarily and that he understood his trial rights. 4.On 25th February 2026, the 1st Accused took plea for the offence of manslaughter. The charge and every element thereof were read and explained to him in a language he understood and he pleaded guilty. The court entered a plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter. 5.The Facts were read out by the Prosecutor and the 1st Accused accepted the facts as true and was convicted 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 6.A pre-sentence probation report was filed on 14th April 2026 and it indicated that both Accused and the deceased were patrons at a local chang’aa den when a brawl broke out as a result of unwelcome advances directed at the deceased’s girlfriend. That the Accused overpowered the deceased, beat him up causing the deceased fatal injuries. The report further stated that the 1st Accused expressed deep remorse and regret over his actions. That he accepted full responsibility and prayed for a non-custodial sentence. 7.The report stated that the 1st Accused was described by the community as a troublesome member who wanted to have his own way in any matter he was involved in. The community was hesitant to support the 1st Accused’s prayer for a non-custodial sentence and asked this court to grant him a long custodial sentence. 8.The Probation Officer recommended a custodial sentence. Victim Impact Statement. 9.The victim’s family stated that they were still reeling from the loss of a loved one. They further stated that the 1st Accused had shown little remorse and that there had been no effort of reconciliation. That that no amount of punishment would bring their kin back. The victim’s family stated that they opposed the 1st Accused’s prayer for a non-custodial sentence. 2nd Accused 10.A Plea-Bargaining Agreement was filed on 25th February 2026 and it indicated that the 2nd Accused had agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter. This court accepted the Plea Agreement after interviewing the Accused and satisfying itself that he executed the Plea Agreement voluntarily and that he understood his trial rights. 11.On 25th February 2026, the 2nd Accused took plea for the offence of manslaughter. The charge and every element thereof were read and explained to him in a language he understood and he pleaded guilty. The court entered a plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter. 12.The Facts were read out by the Prosecutor and the 2nd Accused accepted the facts as true and was convicted 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 13.A pre-sentence probation report was filed on 14th April 2026 and it indicated that both Accused and the deceased were patrons at a local chang’aa den when a brawl broke out as a result of unwelcome advances directed at the deceased’s girlfriend. That the Accused overpowered the deceased, beat him up causing the deceased fatal injuries. The report further stated that the 2nd Accused expressed deep remorse and regret over his actions. That he accepted full responsibility and prayed for a non-custodial sentence. 14.The report stated that the 2nd Accused was a hardworking, responsible and active member of the society but was a known alcoholic which negatively affected his ratings within the community. The community were hesitant to recommend a non-custodial sentence. 15.The Probation Officer recommended a custodial sentence. Victim Impact Statement. 16.The victim’s family stated that they were still reeling from the loss of a loved one. They further stated that the 2nd Accused had shown little remorse and that there had been no effort of reconciliation. That that no amount of punishment would bring their kin back. The victim’s family stated that they opposed the 2nd Accused’s prayer for a non-custodial sentence. 17.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. 18.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. 19.I have considered the circumstances of the case, the pre-sentence report and the Accused prayer for non-custodial sentences. 20.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. 21.In the final analysis, it is my finding that this was not a suitable case for grant of non-custodial sentences. In my view, the Accused must serve custodial sentences. In the end, the 1st Accused is sentenced to serve 10 Years and the 2nd Accused is sentenced to serve 10 Years. In accordance to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentences shall run from 13th July 2022 being the date they took plea. 22.14 days right of Appeal. JUDGEMENT DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.........................................HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’ARJUDGEJudgement delivered in the presence of;Siele/Susan – Court AssistantsMs Koech for the StateBarusei for the 1st AccusedKipngetich for 2nd Accused