Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Kapenguria

Republic v Irene Cherop [2021] KEHC 8021 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that despite the accused's plea of guilty, remorse, and the recommendation for probation, she was not suitable for probation due to her lack of attachment to the community and the practical difficulties in supervision. The court considered the strained domestic relationship, the accused's history of alcohol use, and the fact that the deceased was the aggressor. However, the seriousness of the offence—loss of life—required a custodial sentence. The court also took into account the three months already spent in remand and the mitigating factors presented. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment was appropriate, to run from the date of judgment.

Court disposition

accused sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment

Orders

  • The accused is sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment to run from the date of this judgment.

02

Material facts

Parties

Republic

Applicant Counsel: Mr Makori

Irene Cherop

Defendant Counsel: Ms Opondo

Amounts and remedies

  • Term of Imprisonment (years): 2.5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Case / Sentencing Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The prosecution opposed the placement of the accused on probation, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the loss of life. They did not support a non-custodial sentence, arguing that the circumstances warranted a custodial term.
Respondent
Counsel for the accused argued for a non-custodial sentence, highlighting the accused's remorse, her four minor children, her guilty plea which saved judicial time, her young age, and her promise to stop drinking. The probation report also recommended probation, and her family expressed willingness to support her if released.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya

    Time spent in remand custody must be considered in sentencing.

  2. 02

    General sentencing principles under Kenyan criminal law

    Sentencing must balance the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the interests of justice.

  3. 03

    Probation Officer's Report and judicial discretion

    Probation is appropriate only where the offender has sufficient community attachment and supervision is feasible.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that despite the accused's plea of guilty, remorse, and the recommendation for probation, she was not suitable for probation due to her lack of attachment to the community and the practical difficulties in supervision. The court considered the strained domestic relationship, the accused's history of alcohol use, and the fact that the deceased was the aggressor. However, the seriousness of the offence—loss of life—required a custodial sentence. The court also took into account the three months already spent in remand and the mitigating factors presented. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment was appropriate, to run from the date of judgment.

Obiter and limits

  • The accused's lack of community attachment and residence in rented premises made probation supervision impractical.
  • The accused's plea of guilty and time spent in remand were significant mitigating factors.
  • The deceased was the aggressor in the fatal altercation, which influenced the court's assessment of culpability.

Court disposition

accused sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment

  • The accused is sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment to run from the date of this judgment.

Source and reliance status

High Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court

Judgment

[2021] KEHC 8021 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KAPENGURIA

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1 OF 2021

REPUBLIC...........................................................................................PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

IRENE CHEROP.........................................................................................ACCUSED

JUDGEMENT ON SENTENCE

The issue before me is one of the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused following her conviction on a plea of guilty on a charge of manslaughter.

Ms Opondo, counsel for the accused mitigated on behalf of the accused. She told the court that the accused is very remorseful and has four minor children, who are aged between three months to five years, with the latter being the oldest. Ms Opondo also told the court that by pleading guilty her client saved the time of the court.

She further told the court that her client used to drink alcohol; which has been the cause of her problems and has now promised to stop drinking.

Furthermore, Ms. Opondo told the court that the accused is aged 24 years old.

She urged the court to impose a non-custodial sentence.

Upon the application of Ms. Opondo, the court called for a probation officer’s report, which was duly presented to the court. The report found the following information in respect of the accused. The accused eloped and got married at Kolowo area of Baringo county.

Furthermore, the accused told the probation officer that she acted in self defence after the deceased hit her on the head with a wooden stick. She then used the same wooden stick to hit the deceased on the head.

The father and maternal aunt of the accused prayed that the accused be sentenced to a non-custodial sentence to enable her to take care of her children. They are willing to support the accused if she is sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.

The area chief and assistant chief do not know the accused well; since she had stayed in their area of jurisdiction for only four months. They were of the view that the accused has no attachment to the area.

The community stated that the accused used to sell chang’aaa. She also used to quarrel with the deceased all the time. The accused was accused of infidelity by her neighbours. They accused her of cohabiting with another man, while the deceased was away for one year.

The probation officer was unable to get in touch with the victims’ family at Kolowo village which is in Tiaty sub-county of Baringo county; because there is an ongoing disarmament operation by the police. However, the probation officer managed to talk to the maternal uncle of the deceased, who resides at Chepareria area. He stated that as a family they are very bitter for the loss of their son. He also expressed disappointment with the family of the accused for keeping aloof and for not condoling with them, even after attempts to reach them through the local administration.

The deceased returned home and met his death within two weeks and found the offender with a one-week child whose paternity was the cause of the dispute between them.

In view of the foregoing, the probation officer has recommended that the accused be placed on probation for three years.

The prosecution is opposed to the accused being placed on probation.

I find that this is a case of domestic violence. The relation between the accused and her deceased husband were strained. I further find that the accused used to drink and sell alcohol, which increased the strained relations between them. The strained relations between them was made worse by the accusation of infidelity on the part of the wife.

Furthermore, I have taken into account that a life has been lost; which cannot be replaced. The children of the deceased have been left without a father.

I have taken into account that the accused has now been in remand custody for about three months; which I am mandatorily required to take into account by section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya. Additionally, I have also taken into account that the accused pleaded guilty to the charge; thus saving judicial time and other resources. I have further taken into account that the deceased was the aggressor in this dispute that turned out to be tragic.

I have considered the probation report that recommends the accused to be put on probation for three years. I find that the accused is not suitable for probation; because she has very little attachment to the community. Furthermore, she is not suitable for probation since she has no attachment to the area. This is more so given the fact that the accused lived in rented premises; which now have rented out. This will make it difficult for the probation officer to supervise the accused, if she were to be released on probation.

After taking into account all the foregoing matters, I find that the accused deserves a custodial sentence.

In the premises, I hereby sentence the accused to a term of two and half years’ imprisonment to run from the date of this judgement.

Judgement dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kapenguria this 17th day of March 2021.

J M BWONWONG’A

JUDGE

In the presence of

Ms Hellen court assistant

Mr Makori for the Republic

Ms Opondo for the accused.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) section 333(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.