https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/102

Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E1845 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 102 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 102 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Nakuru Law Courts Criminal Case E1845 of 2025 PA Ndege, SPM May 26, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Abubakar Kamau Accused Sentence 1.The accused herein, Abubakar Kamau, has been convicted upon own plea of the offence of Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code. He admitted that on 24/07/2025 at Freehold Area of Nakuru Township in Nakuru East sub-County within Nakuru County, he willfully and unlawfully assaulted, Raudhat Wamaitha Muchiri, thereby causing her actual bodily harm. 2.It was submitted by the learned counsel for the victim, Mr. Ouma, in the sentencing hearing that the accused had a previous conviction Nakuru CRC E1845 though not clearly enumerated in the victim impact assessment report presented by the probation officer dated 16/03/2026. Counsel also urged the court issue a deterrent sentence. 3.The victim impact assessment report revealed continuous abuse from the accused toward the complainant. It reveals that the accused still suffers from injuries affecting her back that require massage therapies. It also indicates that the accused breached no-contact orders issued at the time of the divorce in the Kadhis’ court at Nakuru. It also characterizes the accused as a person of high temperament. The same also advocates for a sentence that provides conditions that ensure the safety of the victim. 4.The Sentencing policy guidelines of 2023 give the factors that this court should consider when deciding whether to give a custodial or non-custodial sentence in paragraph 2.3.15. The factors are well highlighted in a ruling of the High Court before Justice R. Nyakundi in a criminal revision Kemboi v Republic [2025] KEHC 17293 (KLR) as follows:5.In determining whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence, the court is required to take into account the following factors: -a)Gravity of the offence: - sentence of imprisonment should be avoided for misdemeanor.b)Criminal history of the offender. Taking into account the seriousness of the offences, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentence.c)Character of the offender: - non-custodial sentence are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.d)Protection of the community: - where the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community.e)Offender’s responsibility to third parties: - where there are people depending on the offender. 5.This court notes that the wording of the statute denotes the current offence in question as a misdemeanor that would render one liable for imprisonment for a period of five years. The fact that the offence is a misdemeanor would ordinarily render the offence punishable with a non-custodial sentence. However this court is moved to incline towards a custodial sentence due to the revelations from the victim impact assessment report and other factors. 6.The factors afore mentioned include the character of the offender as temperamental, the previous violation of the no-contact orders during the divorce proceedings, the use of third parties as brought out in the report. and the need to guarantee the safety of the victim from a possible recurrent attack by the accused. These factors are thus what render this court to opt for a custodial sentence. In light of all mentioned above the court holds that the accused be and is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years.14 days right of appeal. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026ALOYCE PETER NDEGESENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATEIn the presence of;Court interpreter: WangareProsecution Counsel: MachariaVictim’s Counsel: OumaVictim: n/a