https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10658

Republic v Kiilu (Criminal Case E169 of 2017) [2026] KEHC 10658 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10658 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kabarnet Criminal Case E169 of 2017 TM Matheka, J July 15, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Jackson Mutuku Kiilu Accused Sentence 1.On 5th June, 2026 the accused person Mutuku Kiilu was found guilty and convicted for manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. 2.Any person found guilty of manslaughter is liable to life imprisonment. 3.After conviction I sought for a pre-sentence report. 4.During the sentence and Mitigation Hearing:Ms. Musango submitted that the prosecution appreciated that the fact that the offence was not pre-mediated, but took issue with the fact that in the period the matter has been going the accused person has never approached the family of the deceased for reconciliation – that the family of the deceased was still aggrieved. The prosecution proposed 8 years imprisonment. 5.Ms. Ngumbao for the accused person submitted that the accused person had expressed deep sense of remorse. That reconciliation would take time but that the accused had shown willingness to reconcile – that a custodial sentence would not be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 6.I have considered the Pre-sentence Report. The views of the family of the victim are that they were neither ready nor willing to consider any form of reconciliation at this moment, However, the step-siblings of the deceased expressed their readiness to forgive and reconcile with the offender. 7.Regarding the Community Attitude towards the Accused and the Offence, the local administration along community members, reported that the offender had cultivated strong ties within the community was dedicated to promoting harmony. They noted that the offender had been a resident of the sub-location since joining that family and had consistently been a valued member of the community. They believe that the offender committed the offence out of provocation from the deceased together with some his siblings. 8.Local administration reports indicated that there was no record of criminal activity within the family. Family members are hopeful about his ability to achieve positive change through correction and rehabilitation programs that emphasize community support. 9.On the accused attitude towards the offence, he acknowledges his responsibility for the offence and appeals for leniency from this Honourable Court, emphasizing that he is the sole provider for his family. 10.It is evident that victim’s family is divided; some are still struggling with the intense pain of losing their loved one in such a tragic way and have expressed strong anger towards the accused’s actions, clinging to the hope that their son’s pursuit of justice will ultimately succeed. Meanwhile, other family members have chosen to forgive the offender and have indicated their desire to reconcile with him. 11.I have considered the PACs report, the recommendation for a non-custodial sentence aimed at behavior management on the ground that the offender does not possess any criminally inclined thought processes. It is also reported that he has behaved well during his time in custody and when out on bond. The report also highlights his remorse for the mistake he made, and he has respectfully requested leniency from this Honourable Court. Both his family and the Makindu Community provide positive testimonies about him. 12.It is recommended that the accused be considered for a non-custodial sentence, specifically a Probation Order for a duration of three years to allow for appropriate supervision, monitoring, and rehabilitation guidance and counselling to help him live a reformed life. It is reported that the community and the local administration are ready to accept him back because they are of the view that he acted out of provocation. It is also highlighted that the family of the deceased is divided – part of it is ready to forgive him, the other person feels that he should serve time. 13.I have carefully considered the submissions by prosecution, and those by defence. 14.The sentencing policy guidelines provided guidance that with manslaughter cases, the degree of culpability may vary widely, from the ‘one punch’ manslaughter to the case involving a prolonged campaign of domestic violence which ultimately results in the victim’s death. The focus must be on the offender’s actions and intentions at the time of the crime in assessing the degree of culpability. 15.In Charo Ngumbao Gugudu v Republic [2011] KECA 387 (KLR) Further, the law is that sentence imposed on an accused person must be commensurate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender and that it is thus not proper exercise of discretion in sentencing, for the Court to fail to look at the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety before settling for any given sentence – see Ambani vs. R. [1990] KLR 161”. 16.In this case the offence involved use of a weapon, an arrow, though this is mitigated by the circumstances of the offence, the choice of weapon was a lethal weapon. It could have killed anyone. There is a degree of moral blameworthiness that calls for more than a non-custodial sentence. 17.In the totality of the circumstances of this case the accused is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment from the date of the conviction 5th June 2026 RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026.MUMBUA T. MATHEKAJUDGEIn the presence of: Accused Ms. Musango for the State Ms. Ngumbao for the Accused Ms. Mwanatumu: Court Assistant