https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9033

Republic v Kameti (Criminal Case 33 of 2017) [2026] KEHC 9033 (KLR) (Crim) (22 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9033 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Criminal Criminal Case 33 of 2017 LN Mutende, J June 22, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Nyamala Kameti Accused Sentence 1.Nyamala Kameti was found guilty and convicted for the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code (Cap 63) Laws of Kenya. 2.In the same vein that an accused person is granted the opportunity to be heard, the victim’s views are considered when the accused is being sentenced. In that regard the court called for a pre-sentence report to assist in determining both the views of the secondary victims as well as those of the accused and the community. 3.The accused (offender) is stated to be 41 years old. His family members relate well with him. He is stated to have been hardworking and did support his parents financially. In the result they pray for a non-custodial sentence and are ready to be part of his reintegration. 4.The accused is a father of four (4) children but has since separated with their mother due to domestic violence and lack of parental support from his end. He is also indicated to use alcohol and miraa. 5.The primary victim is survived by one child who is in custody of her parents. The secondary victims seek justice and are yet to recover from the emotional and financial loss due to the loss of the primary victim. That they have extended a hand of reconciliation to the parents of the offender who have declined. 6.The community at Kibra where the offence was committed did not know the accused and the probation officer was of the view that a non-custodial sentence was not viable. 7.Pursuant to section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) the court called for evidence in mitigation. Learned counsel Mr. Achapa submitted that the guiding principle guiding sentence is that the accused be rehabilitated. That from the time of arrest the accused has not been released. That while in custody for a period of nine (9) years he has shown commitment, he has reformed and is taking bible studies. 8.That in case of release he will be useful to the society as he has done several courses and acquired various skills including an entrepreneurship course. 9.Concerning the offence, it is urged that when the incident happened, he did not run away. He took the deceased to hospital and even called her sister as well as his parents and informed them of what had transpired. 10.Stating that the community is willing to receive him, he prayed for a non-custodial sentence. Reliance was placed on the case of Kamau v Republic E366 of 2025. That the fact that he is 41 years, nine years shy 50 years, he is bound to have health challenges. 11.Learned prosecution counsel, Ms Gikui Gichuhi submitted that the death of the deceased was caused through an intimate relationship with the accused. That she suffered horribly after being burnt by the accused whom she identified during her suffering. That according to the sentencing guidelines aggravating factors include gender-based violence, abuse of trust, vulnerability of the victim. 12.That the deceased’s child has suffered due to loss of a mother. That the deceased was killed by the same person that she trusted, and in the home that she shared with the accused. That due to the brutality the family is still in anguish. 13.That there is nothing on record to show any attempt of reform hence the state seeks custodial sentence so that the offender can be seen to be accountable. Reliance is placed on Republic v Ratemo [2018] eklr where an accused who burnt a girlfriend was given a full sentence for murder. Also relied on is the case of Ng’ang’a Daniel v Republic [2021] KECA (KLR) where a death sentence was meted for gender-based violence. And, it is urged that the non-custodial sentence requested is proportional. 14.I have considered rival submissions together with the authorities cited. 15.The statutory punishment for the offence of murder is provided for in Section 204 of the Penal Code which stipulate that;Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death. 16.However, with development of jurisprudence the mandatory sentence was declared unconstitutional but leaving a window whereby death penalty is the maximum sentence for the offence (See Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 others [2017] KESC 2(KLR). 17.The nucleus principles of sentencing are captured in clause 1.2 of the judiciary sentencing guidelines (2003) which provides as follows:i.Proportionality: The sentence meted out must be proportionate to the offending behaviour meaning it must not be more or less than is merited in view of the gravity of the offence. Proportionality of the sentence to the offending behaviour is weighted in view of the actual, foreseeable and intended impact of the offence as well as the responsibility of the offender.ii.Equality/Uniformity/Parity/Consistency/Impartiality:The same sentences should be imposed for same offences committed by offenders in similar circumstances.iii.Accountability/Transparency: The reasons behind the determination of sentence should be clearly set out and in accordance to the law and the sentencing principles laid out in these guidelines.iv.Inclusiveness: Both the offender and the victim should participate in and inform the sentencing process.v.Totality of the Sentence: The sentence passed for offenders convicted for multiple counts must be just and proportionate, taking into account the offending behaviour as a whole. 18.The objective of sentencing include deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and restorative. In meting out punishment the court would endeavor to ensure that the offender does not commit similar offences again and the public or the community should be dissuaded from committing similar offences. It may be necessary for the offender to be removed from the community to avoid repeat of such an offence. 19.Further, the punishment must be proportionate to the offence committed, the gravity of the offence must not be overlooked. The impact of the offence as well as the responsibility of the accused must be considered. (Also See the Sentencing Police Guidelines 2023). 20.In Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2021] KESC 31 (KLR) the Supreme Court gave directions of what to consider which include the commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence. 21.Although sentencing is a matter of discretion, the court would consider facts and circumstances of each case but also strive to consider comparable decisions. In Kamau v republic [2023] KECA 950 (KLR) where the accused stabbed his girlfriend to death and even sent his sister to go and confirm whether she was dead, the accused was sentenced to death. On appeal the court stated that;“where circumstances justify to keep away an accused person from the society, the Court is at liberty to pass any sentence as provided in the law”. 22.As submitted by the learned prosecution counsel, elements of cruelty were proved in the act committed. The accused used extreme brutality. The murder in question resulted from gender-based violence which was an aggravating factor. 23.The only mitigating factor was the fact of the accused having not run away and facilitating in taking the victim to hospital which may have been a demonstration of remorse. 24.The death of the deceased has left an impact on the vulnerable child of the primary victim. His emotions following the death of his mother will disrupt his life forever. Although the accused has children, due to his violent tendencies they cannot stay with him for the separation with their mother is blamed on domestic violence. 25.The upshot of the above is that I hereby sentence the accused to serve Thirty- Five (35) years imprisonment with effect from 6th July, 2017. 26.Right of appeal explained. 27.It is so ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026HON L. MUTENDEJUDGE