[2020] KEHC 1859 (KLR)
The court determined that, despite the accused's remorse, first offender status, health challenges, and time already spent in custody, the gravity of the offence—murder with multiple injuries inflicted on the deceased—necessitated a custodial sentence. The court found that only a custodial sentence would adequately...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1859 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: James Gitau Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 133 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentencing Ruling
- Outcome
- Accused sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment for murder, sentence to run from 30/12/2014.
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing, Mitigating Factors, Aggravating Circumstances
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
James Gitau Njoroge
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be sentenced to a custodial term for the offence of murder.
- 2 What mitigating and aggravating factors should influence the length and nature of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that, despite the accused's remorse, first offender status, health challenges, and time already spent in custody, the gravity of the offence—murder with multiple injuries inflicted on the deceased—necessitated a custodial sentence. The court found that only a custodial sentence would adequately express society's condemnation and serve as a deterrent. The sentence was set at fifteen years' imprisonment, with the period to be calculated from the date the accused was first taken into custody (30/12/2014), thereby crediting time already served.
Court Disposition
Accused sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment for murder, sentence to run from 30/12/2014.
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) years.
- The period of imprisonment shall be computed to begin on 30/12/2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 133 OF 2014
REPUBLIC..............................................................STATE
VERSUS
JAMES GITAU NJOROGE..........................ACCUSED
SENTENCE RULING
1. The Accused Person, James Gitau Njoroge (“Accused Person”) was charged and convicted of the murder contrary to section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. In a judgment dated 13/06/2019, the Court found that the Accused Person, with malice aforethought, killed Susan Wanjiru Mwaura (“Deceased”) at Rhonda Estate in Nakuru District within Nakuru County on the 28th day of December, 2014.
2. The circumstances in which the offence was committed are contained in the Judgment of the Court. In short, the Accused Person and the Deceased lived together as husband and wife. It was, by all accounts, a stormy union. Neighbours testified that the two often violently fought. On the fateful day the Deceased died, witnesses saw the Accused Person dragging the Deceasedfrom a neighbour’s house while raining blows and kicks on her.
The following morning the Deceased was no more. The doctor concluded that the cause of death was traumatic brain injury caused by a blunt object. The body had multiple injuries mainly on the head and upper body regions.
3. In mitigation, the Accused Person’s Counsel, Mr. Orege, told theCourt that the Accused Person was remorseful; that he regrets losing his wife and friend; that he blames his actions on alcohol abuse. Counsel submitted that the Accused Person has now been left to fend for the four children aged between 27 and 13 years old. Mr. Orege also told the Court that the Accused Person has serious health challenges in the form of stubborn Tuberclosis. The Accused Person begged for leniency in sentencing. Lastly, Mr. Orege told the Court to consider that the Accused Person has been in custody since 30/12/2014.
4. The DPP reported that the Accused Person is a first offender.
5. I have carefully considered all the factors in his case on an individualized basis as I am required to do. I have considered the following four mitigating factors.
6. First, the Accused Person the Accused Person is a first offender.
7. Second, the Accused Person expressed remorse. On the negative side, though, I considered that he had not taken any positive steps to ask for forgiveness from the family of the Deceased.
8. These mitigating factors must be balanced with aggravating circumstances to arrive at an appropriate sentence. The multiple injuries to the body of the Deceased is an aggravating circumstance.
9. After due consideration of these factors, I have come to the conclusion that a custodial sentence is merited as the only suitable way of expressing society’s condemnation of the Accused Person’s conduct or deter similar conduct in the future. I am of the view that a custodial sentence of fifteen (15) years is the appropriate sentence. I have, however, considered that the Accused Person has been in custody since 30/12/2014. His sentence will begin running from that day.
10. Consequently, I hereby sentence the Accused Person to imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) years. The period of imprisonment shall be computed to begin on 30/12/2014.
11. Orders accordingly.
Dated and Delivered at Nakuru this 12thday of November, 2020.
...........................
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE