[2024] KEHC 15188 (KLR)
The court found that, despite the accused's remorse, family forgiveness, and recommendation for a non-custodial sentence in the pre-sentence report, the offence of murder was grave and unjustified, resulting in the loss of an innocent child's life. The court emphasized the need for a deterrent sentence to reflect...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Abdiqadar Abdullahi Keynan
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E010 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentence
- Outcome
- Accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment less time spent in remand custody.
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Remorse, Pre Sentence Report
- 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
Abdiqadar Abdullahi Keynan
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be sentenced to a custodial or non-custodial sentence for the offence of murder.
- 2 What mitigating and aggravating factors should influence the sentence imposed on the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, despite the accused's remorse, family forgiveness, and recommendation for a non-custodial sentence in the pre-sentence report, the offence of murder was grave and unjustified, resulting in the loss of an innocent child's life. The court emphasized the need for a deterrent sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to serve the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence and community protection. The court exercised its discretion by considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, the pre-sentence report, and the period spent in remand custody, ultimately imposing a custodial sentence of 15 years imprisonment, less time already served in remand.
Court Disposition
Accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment less time spent in remand custody.
Orders
- Accused is sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment less the period spent in remand custody (1 year 4 months and 20 days).
- Right of appeal within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Republic v Keynan (Criminal Case E010 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 15188 (KLR) (29 November 2024) (Sentence)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15188 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Garissa
Criminal Case E010 of 2023
JN Onyiego, J
November 29, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Abdiqadar Abdullahi Keynan
Accused
Sentence
1. Accused person is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with Section 204 of the penal code. Particulars are that on 14th July 2023, at Hagadera refugee camp, Hagadera location, of Fafi Sub-county within Garissa County he unlawfully murdered Mohammed Noor.
2. Having returned a plea of not guilty, the matter proceeded to full trial consequences whereof he was found guilty and subsequently the court ordered for a pre-sentence report.
3. According to the report, the accused is remorseful having conceded that he murdered his nephew not out of his own free will. That the family has since forgiven him since he was sick mentally due to drug addiction when he committed the offence. The report recommended a non-custodial sentence.
4. On his mitigation, he pleaded for leniency claiming that he was the sole breadwinner to his family. He was remorseful. He regretted killing his sister’s son due to the influence of drugs. That the family had forgiven him and was willing to support the sister mother to the deceased.
5. It is trite that sentencing is at the discretion of the trial court. See Kipkoech Kogo - vs - R. Eldoret Criminal Appeal No.253 of 2003 where the Court of Appeal stated thus:-“sentence is essentially an exercise of discretion by the trial court and for this court to interfere it must be shown that in passing the sentence, the sentencing court took into account an irrelevant factor or that a wrong principle was applied or that short of these, the sentence itself is so excessive and therefore an error of principle must be interfered (see also Sayeka –vs- R. (1989 KLR 306)”
6. Similar position was stated by the court of appeal in Bernard Kimani Gacheru vs. Republic [2002] eKLR where it was stated that:“It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the High Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court. Similarly, sentence must depend on the facts of each case. On appeal, the appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless, that sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial court overlooked some material factor, or took into account some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle. Even if, the Appellate Court feels that the sentence is heavy and that the Appellate Court might itself not have passed that sentence, these alone are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the discretion of the trial court on sentence unless, anyone of the matters already states is shown to exist.”
7. It is however worth noting that in exercise of its discretion, a court is duty bound to take into consideration certain guiding principles interalia; the aggravating nature of the offence committed; the mitigating factors; pre-sentence report; previous criminal record of the accused; and victim impact assessment report. See judiciary sentencing policy guidelines clause 4. 5 of 2023.
8. This court is pretty aware of the objectives of sentencing which are also captured in the judiciary sentencing policy guidelines clause 1. 3.1 of 2023 as; retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, denunciation, reconciliation and reintegration.
9. I have carefully considered the circumstances under which the offence was committed and the mitigation on record. I have also considered the sentiments contained in the pre-sentence report which is favourable. Accused person admitted the offence. He appeared remorseful. He is a first offender.
10. However, the offence committed is serious. There was no justification for his actions. A deterrent sentence is necessary. An innocent child lost life for no apparent reason. Accordingly, I find the sentence of 15 years imprisonment appropriate
11. In meting out this sentence, I am mindful of the requirement of Section 333(2) of the CPC by taking into account the period spent in remand custody translating to 1 year 4 months and 20 days. Accordingly, accused is sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment less the period spent in remand custody.ROA 14 days.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE