[2017] KEHC 6007 (KLR)
The court found that the accused was not proved to have acted with malice aforethought, thus reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter. The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including the lack of evidence of self-defence or provocation, the severity of the assault, and the resulting loss of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6007 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Joshua Koikai Sitaya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 44 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentencing and Verdict
- Outcome
- convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment
- Judges
- DB Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Culpability, Psychiatric Evidence
- 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
Joshua Koikai Sitaya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing and Verdict
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused was guilty of murder or the lesser offence of manslaughter.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused was not proved to have acted with malice aforethought, thus reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter. The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including the lack of evidence of self-defence or provocation, the severity of the assault, and the resulting loss of life. Mitigating factors such as the accused's remorse, lack of prior criminal record, family responsibilities, and time spent in custody were weighed against the seriousness of the offence. The court concluded that the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors, making a non-custodial sentence inappropriate. Accordingly, the accused was...
Court Disposition
convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter.
- The period spent in custody since 21/12/2015 shall be taken into account.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAJIADO
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 44 OF 2015
REPUBLIC……………...……………………………………………...……PROSECUTOR
Versus
JOSHUA KOIKAI SITAYA………...…….…….......................................................ACCUSED
Counsel Mr. Mokaya for the Accused
Mr. Akula, Senior Prosecution Counsel
SENTENCE REMARKS AND VERDICT
The accused Joshua Koikai Sitaya initially you were charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code. At the close of the trial this court considered and evaluated the evidence which led to the substitution of the offence to a lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to section 202 of the Penal Code punishable under section 205 of the same code. The brief circumstances were that on the night of the attack on 31/10/2013 you demanded the deceased Orais Sapunyu to come out of his house so that you can talk over some issue which was not clear from the case. As the deceased turned down your request for a discussion with you, the more you continued pressing for it to happen now and there.
A combination of facts presented by PW1 and PW2 painted a picture when you suddenly armed yourself with a metal bar and a piece of wood. In a spur of the moment the deceased was hit and as a result he suffered severe head injury. The bodily harm suffered necessitated the deceased to be taken to Malaika hospital. It is in the course of the efforts to have the deceased acquire proper medication that he succumbed to death. The cause of death from the autopsy report was intracranial cerebral injuries due to blunt force consistent with assault. I do not know for certain what caused the violence of such a magnitude as there was anything available to show that you were either defending yourself or property. In your case, you surrendered yourself to the police that the deceased was having an affair with your wife. On the day this fatal blow happened no scintilla evidence that the deceased was with your wife was placed before court. Though I allowed the offence from murder to that of manslaughter was as a result of malice not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It is against this background I now pass sentence. Mr. Nyata for the defence made reference to mitigating factors which may be relevant to your favour. Thus that you are a family man in whom your spouse and children depend on you for support and maintenance. That you are remorseful and do regret the offence. It was also the contention that you did not plan nor did you have the intention to kill the deceased.
Prior to you being indicted before this court a psychiatric report showed that you are a person with good concentration and memory. There were no mental disorders noted. You were therefore not suffering from any mental disorder despite this court lowering your culpability to that of manslaughter. Mr.Nyata also asked as to bear in mind the period spent in custody awaiting conclusion of your trial. Mr. Akula in his remarks informed the court that you have no previous criminal record. He however likewise invited me to apply the law as the offence you were found guilty and convicted is a serious offence.
The pre-sentence report which was called for by this court also captures your profile and family background. This includes that you are married and blessed with three children. The report also indicates that no victim – offender medication has taken place since the occurrence of this offence. In their view a non-custodial sentence will beneficiate for your rehabilitation.
I have considered the arguments from both sides including the pre-sentence report. The offence of which you have been found culpable is a serious one where another human being life through unlawful acts has been prematurely terminated. The sanctity of life is protected in our constitution and any person who violates the right and endangers the life of another has to pay the price of accountability. The manner in which the deceased was subjected to intense assault in order to bring about his death is a factor to be taken into account in making an order on sentence.
As a demonstration to the seriousness of the offence under section 202 parliament provided punishment for a maximum of life imprisonment. This to me falls under the category of heinous crime particularly when committed in circumstances not within the exceptions of the law like in defence of property or self. This court must respond to the demands of the gravity of the offence and the commensurate sentence. This therefore is not a proper case for non-custodial sentence. Criminal law is about public interest and society in general where the object of punishing crime with the hindset that the same will act as a deterrence and a warning to others that in the event a crime of such a nature is committed the law will be enforced.
Having considered all those factors including the period you have been held in custody since 21/12/2015 the minimum term I must impose upon you is one of 25 years imprisonment. 14 days right of appeal explained time which to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kajiado this 21st day of April, 2017
………………………………….
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE
Representation:
Mr. Mokaya for the accused present
Mr. Akula for the state present
Accused present
Mr. Mateli Court Assistant