https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7934

Republic v Dabassso (Criminal Case 23 of 2016) [2026] KEHC 7934 (KLR) (Crim) (9 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7934 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Criminal Criminal Case 23 of 2016 K Kimondo, J June 9, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Abdullahi Wako Dabassso Accused Sentence 1.The accused was adjudged guilty of murder by the High Court on 10th day of February 2026. 2.His records as well as a pre-sentencing report have now been presented to the court. On 20th April 2026, I conducted a sentencing session and heard submissions from the learned prosecution counsel, Ms. Kigira, and learned counsel for the accused, Mr. Lumumba. 3.The circumstances surrounding this offence are well captured in the judgement. On the night of 2nd and 3rd March 2016, the accused, a police officer, shot the deceased (a fellow policeman) at close range using a government issue Ceska Pistol. The bullet entered through the left side of his head, fractured the temporal bone, pierced the brain and caused a tear measuring 14 x 5 cm. The deceased died on 4th March 2016 while undergoing treatment at Kenyatta National Hospital. 4.I have also taken into account the mitigation tendered by his learned counsel. He submitted that the court has discretion on sentencing and referenced the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic, Consolidated Petitions Nos. 15 & 16 of 2015 [2017] eKLR. He emphasized that the accused, now aged 58, is a first offender and has served the country for 37 years as a police officer. Counsel stated that the accused “maintains his innocence but grieves for the family of the deceased”. 5.He added that the accused is married with children; and, that any further incarceration will lead to great hardship for his innocent family. In addition, he has co-operated with authorities and the court throughout the trial. Counsel thus prayed for a lenient or “structured sentence including probation”. 6.In a synopsis, it was a plea for clemency to enable the accused to start a new chapter in life. 7.The republic on the other hand implored the court to take into account the grave nature of the offence and its impact on the family of the victim. In that regard, it was submitted that justice would only be served by a long custodial sentence. 8.I have also paid heed to the pre-sentencing report under the hand of Ms. Salome Muthoni, Probation Officer, dated 11th May 2026. The report recommends a probation order or non-custodial sentence on the premise that the offender is remorseful, has a strong family support system and a low risk of recidivism. 9.The Victims Protection Act decrees that the views of the victim’s family be considered at this stage. From the social report, the deceased was aged 34 and left behind a wife and three children. He was the financial pillar for his immediate family and his parents. The homicide has thus caused the family financial distress, psychological trauma and a deep sense of loss. There has been no reconciliation between the families of the accused and the victim. 10.Murder is a grave felony that attracts the death penalty. However, following the momentous decision of the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [supra] the mandatory nature of the death sentence as provided for under Section 204 of the Penal Code was declared unconstitutional. This did not outlaw the death penalty, but it left the court with discretion to impose a lighter sentence. 11.The sentence here must thus be commensurate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender but also guided by the nature and gravity of crime. Considering all the circumstances of the offence and the age of the accused, I am not satisfied that a probation order or non-custodial sentence would be appropriate. The fact that the accused used a lethal weapon to shoot the deceased in the head was cruel, premeditated and remains an aggravating factor. 12.Justice in this case can only be served through a custodial sentence. I accordingly sentence the accused person to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. In accordance with section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, any period spent in remand custody from the date of his arrest (but excluding such period when he was out on bail) shall be deducted from the sentence. 13.The accused has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days and as per the Rules of that Court. A copy of the proceedings, judgment and sentence shall be supplied to him immediately.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.KANYI KIMONDOJUDGESentence read in court via Microsoft Teams in the presence of-Accused.Ms. M. Kigira for the Republic instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.Ms. M. Akello holding brief for Mr. Otieno for the accused instructed by Brian Otieno & Company Advocates.Mr. E. Ombuna, Court Assistant.