https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11148

Republic v Charito alias Benjamin Kasirtich (Criminal Case E008 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11148 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11148 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kapenguria Criminal Case E008 of 2025 RPV Wendoh, J July 21, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Limaikwang Charito alias Benjamin Kasirtich Accused Sentence 1.Limaikwang Charito Alias Benjamin Kasirtich was convicted for the offence of Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code after a full trial. The matter is now before me for sentence. 2.It is important to state at this stage that sentencing is an exercise of the court’s discretion guided by the Constitution, the relevant statutes, the 2016 Judiciary of Kenya sentencing Policy Guidelines and the special facts of each case. 3.The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the exercise of the court’s discretion in sentencing in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another -V- Republic (2017) eKLR. The court stated “(72) we wish to make it very clear that these guidelines in no way replace judicial discretion. They are advisory and not mandatory. They are geared to promoting consistency and transparency in sentencing hearings. They are also aimed at promoting public understanding of the sentencing process”. 4.At page 15 paragraph 4.1 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines; what should be considered when sentencing is set out as follows;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 police the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation; to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.vii.Reconciliation; to mend the relationship between the offender the victim and the communityviii.Reintegration; To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society. 5.The Supreme Court in Muruatetu’s Case, the Supreme Court also set down some mitigating factors that the court may consider while sentencing which are;1.Age of the offender;2.Being a first offender;3.Whether the offender pleaded guilty;4.Character and record of the offender;5.Commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence;6.Remorsefulness of the offender;7.The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender;8.Any other factor that the court considers relevant. 6.The Accused in this case is a man aged fourty eight (48) years old. The prosecution did not have any previous record in respect of accused. He was thus treated as a first offender. 7.Mr. Kachapin, the accused’s Counsel submitted in mitigation and stated that before this incident, the accused worked as a guard, is the sole breadwinner of his six (6) children his first wife having passed away; and that he also takes care of his seventy-two (72) year old mother; that the children are now under the care of the mother; that accused is remorseful; that the families engaged ‘Lapai’ the Pokot process of compensation for loss of a life and that compensation has been paid, that while in remand, accused underwent biblical studies and has been issued with a certificate to that effect. 8.The court has considered the above mitigation and also the pre-sentence report. The report reveals that indeed ‘Lapai’ had been commenced but was never completed as the deceased’s family were no longer interested. It means that the reconciliation, forgiveness and compensation was completed. 9.The Probation Officer attributed accused’s actions to failure to manage his anger. This is a serious matter where a life weas lost in most unfortunate circumstances, i.e. due to failure to manage his anger and jealousy. The deceased’s family also lost a bread winner, the love and company of a father, husband and brother. As the Accused set out on this revenge mission, he should have thought of all these responsibilities. This act was well planned, selfish, calculated and self-serving and a deterrent sentence is deserved. For all the above reasons, I sentence the accused to eighteen (18) years imprisonment. SENTENCE DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAPENGURIA THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.R. WENDOH.JUDGEIn the Presence of:-Accused– presentMr. Kachapin for accused.M/s Koech for State/ Prosecution CounselJuma/ Hellen- Court Assistants