https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10669

Republic v Jatan & another (Criminal Case E011 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10669 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10669 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Case E011 of 2024 DR Kavedza, J July 15, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Ramadhan Hamed Jatan 1st Accused Abdi Hussein Barisso 2nd Accused Judgment 1.The 1st and 2nd accused, were jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code, cap 63, laws of Kenya. The particulars are that on the 23rd July 2024 along Masai – West Road area in Lang’ata Sub County within Nairobi County murdered No. 101456 PC Joseph Mbuthia. 2.The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. However, following successful plea negotiations with the state, the both accused persons pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter and signed their respective plea agreements on 15th December 2025.The accused persons were therefore jointly charged with the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 205 of the Penal Code cap 63 Laws of Kenya. 3.The brief facts, as set out in the plea agreements are as follows: On 23rd July 2024 at about 8.00 a.m., Nancy Muthoni Kirichi was walking along Maasai Lane in the Hardy area when she was accosted by two men riding a motorcycle. They robbed her of a Redmi mobile phone before fleeing. Muthoni testified that the pillion passenger appeared to be of Somali origin, while the rider wore a blue helmet which concealed his face. She further observed that the rider was dressed in blue and black clothing. After the incident, he informed his employer, who advised him to report the matter to Hardy Police Station. He subsequently made the report. 4.Later the same day, at about 2.30 p.m., Mary Muindi Karanja was walking along Twiga Road in the Hardy area when she too was attacked by two men riding a motorcycle. They robbed her of a Samsung mobile phone before escaping towards Maasai Lane. Mary immediately raised an alarm by screaming "thief, thief." 5.The distress call attracted the attention of Enock Nyambu, an Ultimate Security guard who was on patrol along Maasai Lane. He attempted to stop the motorcycle, but the rider evaded him and sped towards Ushirika Road. Enock promptly relayed the information by radio to his colleagues who were patrolling along Maasai West Road, where police officers, including the deceased, Police Constable Joseph Mbuthia, and Police Constable Obed Njagu, were conducting a joint patrol with the security personnel. 6.Upon receiving the report, the officers immediately positioned their patrol vehicle across the road to intercept the fleeing motorcycle. Within moments, the motorcycle approached the roadblock. The deceased alighted and signaled the rider to stop while raising his firearm. 7.The prosecution evidence is that, instead of complying, the rider attempted to force his way through the blockade. In the process, the motorcycle struck the deceased. The impact caused the rider to lose control, and the motorcycle veered into a ditch. Both occupants were thrown from the motorcycle and were immediately arrested. They were subsequently identified as the two accused persons before the court. 8.The deceased sustained injuries to his left leg, knee and head. He was rushed to Nairobi Women's Hospital where he received treatment and was discharged. The accused persons, who had also sustained injuries during the accident, were taken to Lang'ata Sub-County Hospital for treatment before being escorted to the police station. The stolen Redmi and Samsung mobile phones were recovered from them. 9.On the following day, 24th July 2024, the deceased complained of persistent pain arising from the injuries sustained during the incident. He was readmitted to Nairobi West Hospital. Despite receiving medical treatment, his condition deteriorated and he succumbed to his injuries. His body was preserved at Chiromo Mortuary pending post-mortem examination. 10.On 25th July 2024, Corporal Robert Njega took over the investigations. He traced and interviewed the two robbery complainants, namely Nancy Muthoni Kirichi and Mary Muindi Karanja. Their descriptions of the assailants were consistent with the appearance of the two accused persons. 11.The investigating officer further established that a CCTV camera installed at a nearby gate had captured the incident in which the deceased was struck by the motorcycle. Pursuant to Miscellaneous Application No. 687 of 2024, the investigating officer obtained court orders authorising the retrieval of the CCTV footage. The footage was extracted under an exhibit memo dated 31st July 2024. It was subsequently analysed by Evelyne Barasa, who prepared an analysis report and certificate dated 16th August 2024. Sixteen still images extracted from the footage were also produced. Photographs of the motorcycle involved in the incident were similarly produced together with the requisite certificate. 12.A post-mortem examination was conducted on 30th July 2024. The pathologist formed the opinion that the cause of death was acute peritonitis secondary to a perforated small bowel. The prosecution relied on the post-mortem report as evidence of the cause of death. 13.The accused persons were later subjected to mental assessment at Mathari National Teaching and Referral Hospital. The medical reports confirmed that each of them was fit to plead. That constituted the prosecution evidence on the circumstances leading to the arrest of the accused persons and the subsequent death of Police Constable Joseph Mbuthia. 14.Upon reading the facts to the accused persons and after confirming that the plea-bargaining process was voluntary, that the accused persons constitutional rights had not been violated during the negotiation process, and further that they were not coerced, the court accepted the plea agreement and convicted the 1st and 2nd accused accordingly. 15.In mitigation, learned counsel for the accused relied on the written mitigation and urged the court to consider the personal circumstances of both accused persons, their remorse, and the time already spent in custody. 16.The first accused expressed profound remorse and accepted responsibility for his actions. He acknowledged that the offence had resulted in the loss of life and immeasurable pain to the deceased's family. He stated that no words of mitigation could erase their suffering, prayed for God's forgiveness, and asked the family and the court to forgive him. 17.The second accused likewise expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for the events of 23rd July 2024, which resulted in the death of Police Constable Joseph Mbuthia. He stated that he was deeply troubled by the incident, had been unable to find peace since the deceased's death, and appreciated that he could never fill the void left in the lives of the deceased's family. He pleaded for forgiveness from the court, the victims, and God. 18.On behalf of the victims, Mary Nyambura, the deceased's mother, described the devastating impact of her son's death. She stated that the deceased was 33 years old and that shortly after his death, her husband succumbed to cancer, leaving her without support. She told the court that she was now the sole breadwinner and had also been separated from her grandchild following her daughter-in-law's departure. She described the loss of her son as deeply painful and urged the court to do justice. 19.Esther Maina, the deceased's widow, informed the court that the death of her husband had left her unable to work and adversely affected both her health and that of their child. She stated that she had struggled to provide for the child's education and upbringing and lamented that her son would grow up without his father's love and guidance. She urged the court to impose a just sentence. 20.Ms. Timoi, Learned prosecution counsel submitted that the deceased was a young husband, father and provider to both his immediate and extended family. Counsel emphasised that he lost his life in the line of duty while attempting to apprehend fleeing robbery suspects and protect members of the public. The prosecution identified as aggravating factors that the accused were escaping immediately after committing violent robberies and urged the court to impose a custodial sentence consistent with the Sentencing Policy Guidelines and the pre-sentence reports. 21.In reply, defence counsel submitted that both accused were youthful offenders who had demonstrated genuine remorse. Counsel informed the court that the first accused was a father, a breadwinner and actively involved in coaching sports, while the second accused cared for his elderly grandfather and had undertaken sporting activities while in custody. Counsel further submitted that both had written letters of apology to the deceased's family dated 26th January 2026, although attempts at reconciliation were unsuccessful as the family was unwilling to engage. The court was urged to consider their rehabilitation, remorse and the period already spent in custody when determining an appropriate sentence. 22.In determining the appropriate sentence, I have considered the mitigation by both accused persons, the victim impact statements, the submissions by counsel, and the respective pre-sentence reports, all of which are duly on record. I have also considered the principles of sentencing, namely proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, denunciation and the protection of the public. 23.The pre-sentence reports indicate that both accused persons are youthful first offenders. They expressed remorse, accepted responsibility for their actions, and sought the court's leniency. The first accused is a father and was described as the breadwinner of his family and a sports coach before his incarceration. The second accused was reported to have been caring for his elderly grandfather and had engaged in sporting activities while in custody. Both accused have demonstrated good conduct in prison and wrote letters of apology to the deceased's family. Although defence counsel attempted reconciliation, the deceased's family was understandably unwilling to engage. 24.The court has equally considered the victim impact statements. The deceased's mother narrated the devastating loss of her son, who was her source of support, and explained that she was left to fend for herself following the subsequent death of her husband. The deceased's widow described the emotional and financial hardship occasioned by the loss of her husband, leaving her to single-handedly raise their young child, who has been deprived of a father's love, care and guidance. Their pain remains profound and enduring. 25.The offence before the court is manslaughter, whose penalty is prescribed under section 205 of the Penal Code, which provides:“Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life." 26.In Thomas Mwambu Wenyi v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Court of Appeal, while citing with approval the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Alister Anthony Pereira v State of Maharashtra, observed:“Sentencing is an important task in the matter of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done... The twin objective of sentencing policy is deterrence and correction... The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence." 27.The circumstances of this case are particularly grave. The deceased was a police officer who was lawfully discharging his constitutional duty of protecting members of the public and apprehending suspects fleeing after committing two robberies. Rather than submit to lawful arrest, the accused attempted to evade the police roadblock and, in the process, struck the deceased with the motorcycle. Although the evidence did not establish the malice aforethought necessary to sustain a conviction for murder, their unlawful conduct directly resulted in the fatal injuries that claimed the life of a young police officer. 28.The court has given due weight to the remorse expressed by both accused persons, their status as first offenders, their personal circumstances, and the period they have spent in custody. However, those mitigating factors must be balanced against the aggravating circumstances, namely that the offence occurred while the accused were escaping immediately after committing robberies, and that the deceased lost his life in the line of duty while protecting the public. The sentence imposed must therefore reflect society's denunciation of such conduct, uphold respect for the rule of law, and deter similar offences. 29.Having considered all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a non-custodial sentence would neither meet the ends of justice nor adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. A custodial sentence is warranted to punish the offenders, deter similar conduct, and afford them the opportunity for rehabilitation. 30.Accordingly, I sentence each of the accused persons to seventeen (17) years' imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter. Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence shall run from 24th July 2024, being the date, they were arrested.Orders accordingly. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026________________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Accused persons PresentMs. Timoi for the ProsecutionKarimi Court Assistant.