https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9892

Republic v Kiplagat alias “Msanii" (Criminal Case E047 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 9892 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9892 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Criminal Case E047 of 2021 JRA Wananda, J July 3, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Stanley Kiplagat alias “Msanii" Accused Sentence 1.The accused was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that between the night of 27/07/2021 and 28/07/2021 at Marura Village, Kaptukuk Sub Location, Koitoror Location, Moiben Sub County, within Uasin Gishu County, he murdered one Caroline Jepkorir Chesire. As the accused denied the charge, the case proceeded to full trial and by the Judgment rendered by this Court on 17/12/2025, he was found guilty and convicted. 2.Regarding the sentencing to be imposed, I directed that a pre-Sentence Report be prepared and filed, which was done. The Report, dated 25/02/2026 and prepared by the Probation & Aftercare Service (Elgeyo Marakwet County Office) indicated that it had been compiled after, inter alia, interviews with the accused and his family, family of the deceased, and also the local administration. 3.During the sentence hearing conducted on 2/03/2026, Ms. Moronge Counsel for the accused, in mitigation, submitted the Pre-Sentence Report is favourable to the accused, who is a first offender and remorseful, that he is a single father of a 7 years old child whom he had with the deceased, and that the said child is in custody of a sister of the accused. She urged that the family of the deceased and the community at large, has forgiven the accused, who had never been in conflict with the law and that the incident was accidental. She also pointed out that the accused has been in remand custody for about 4 years and 5 months, which period she urged the Court to consider. 4.Prosecution Counsel Ms. Muriithi, on her part, submitted that although the accused is a first offender, the aggravating factor is that a life was lost, and the family of the deceased has suffered. She contended that although the incident was accidental, it shows that the accused cannot control his anger, and that the child left behind is suffering having lost her mother. Determination 5.The applicable law on sentence for the offence of murder is Section 204 of the Penal Code which provides as follows:“Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.” 6.It is now however, generally agreed that in spite of the mandatory language employed by the statute, the Courts nonetheless still retain discretion in sentencing. It is on this basis that in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, the Supreme Court declared the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional insofar as it also does not allow for consideration of mitigation. This is how the Supreme Court put it: 7.In determining sentence, I take into account the Supreme Court decision in the the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR) in which it guided that, in sentencing, the following mitigating factors would be applicable; (a) age of the offender; (b) being a first offender; (c) whether the offender pleaded guilty; (d) character and record of the offender; (e) commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence; (f) remorsefulness of the offender; (g) the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender; and, (h) any other factor that the Court considers relevant. 8.Similarly, the Court of Appeal, in the case of Daniel Kipkosgei Letting Vs. Republic[2021] eKLR, pronounced as follows;“With regard to the above, we observe that the purpose and objectives of sentencing as stated in the Judiciary Sentencing policy should be commensurate and proportionate to the crime committed and the manner in which it was committed. The sentencing should be one that meets the end of justice and ensures that the principles of proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation are adhered to. ……..” 9.Further, Majanja J, in quoting Francis Karioko Muruatetu (supra), in the case of Michael Kathewa Laichena & another v Republic [2018] eKLR,stated as follows:“The Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 (“the Guidelines”) published by the Kenya Judiciary provide a four tier methodology for determination of a custodial sentence. The starting point is establishing the custodial sentence under the applicable statute. Second, consider the mitigating circumstances or circumstances that would lessen the term of the custodial sentence. Third, aggravating circumstances that will go to increase the sentence. Fourth, weigh both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. ………………………………” 10.With the above guidelines in mind, I have considered the manner in which the offence was committed. It is evident that the accused and the deceased had been living together for about 5 years before the incident, and had one child. At the time of the incident, they were living in a rented single house, and from the evidence on record, it is evident that they had been engaged in a long history of domestic violence. It is clear that on the fateful night, the two got into one of those fights, and it is in the course of such altercation that the accused physically assaulted the deceased, banging her head against a hard object, or using a blunt object weapon to hit her, including on the head. From the narrative given by the accused, he was offended by the failure by the deceased to perform domestic chores, including cooking, and for diverting money he had given her to buy food into buying alcohol and drinking. There is also indication that both of them were intoxicated to some extent during the fight. 11.I have also considered the contents, findings and recommendations of the Pre-sentence Report. Some of the salient observations I make therefrom is that the accused is at present 45 years old, and has a history of alcohol use. Regarding the families of the accused and the deceased, they are said to have come to terms with the death, and they are said not to fully blame the accused for the same. It is however reported that there has been no formal reconciliation initiated by the family of the accused but the family of the deceased remains open to engagement and possible reconciliation should any efforts be made in that regard. The family of the deceased is also said not to have a preference for any particular form of sentence for the accused. On its part, the local administration is reported to have confirmed that the accused maintained positive social relations and was a person of good standing, notwithstanding the incident, and that the community is of the opinion that he be accorded the opportunity to reintegrate into society, rebuild and support his child. The Report then proposes that the accused be placed on probation for about 3 years.The above are no doubt, mitigating factors which ought to have a bearing on the sentence to be imposed. 12.There are however notable aggravating circumstances. For instance, the Post-Mortem Report paints a grim picture of a vicious and violent attack as indicated by the severe injuries inflicted upon the deceased. The cause of death is stated to have been “severe head injury due to assault”, and the deceased is reported to have suffered a swelling on the right side of the face with multiple bruises on the right orbital region, and also swellings and bruises on the eye-lids and both hands. The Pathologist testified that on dissection of the body of the deceased, massive haemorrhage was found between the skin of the skull and the right side of the skull, and massive blood on the surface of the brain, and the brain was compressed. There is therefore no doubt that the accused used unjustifiable and unnecessarily excessive force in attacking the deceased and deliberately targeted the head of the deceased fully aware that an assault of that nature would have severe impact on a human being. 13.I agree with the Prosecution Counsel that although the accused person is first time offender, a life was lost and the Court must reiterate that it is not acceptable to take a human life extra judicially. This was not a random act of violence between strangers, but a profound betrayal of the ultimate “safe harbour”. Indeed, the society is currently witnessing similar tragic trends where “minor” domestic disputes escalate into avoidable violence leading to loss of life. Sentencing must therefore reflect the reality that domestic violence is a lethal trajectory, and the Court’s intervention today serves as a necessary, if late, barrier to that cycle. I will therefore impose a prison sentence but since I find no indication that the accused was at any point released on bond or bail since his arrest after occurrence of the incident on or about 27/07/2021, in accordance with the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procure Code, the term that he will serve the prison sentence shall be mitigated as a result of consideration of the period he already served in remand custody. Final Orders 14.In circumstances, I make orders as follows:i.I hereby sentence the accused, Stanely Kiplagat alias Msanii, to serve ten(10) years imprisonment.ii.In computing the term to be served in prison, the period already spent by the accused persons in custody during the trial, shall be deemed as already served portion of the prison term. In other words, the period that the accused is to serve in prison shall be computed from the date when he was arraigned, namely, 10/08/2021. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.....................................WANANDA JOHN R. ANUROJUDGEDelivered in the presence of:Accused person present physically in CourtMs. Moronge for the accused personMs. Muriithi for the StateCourt Assistant: Brian Kimathi