https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10811

Republic v Kiprop (Criminal Case E004 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10811 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10811 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldama Ravine Criminal Case E004 of 2024 TM Matheka, J July 17, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Johana Kimolop Kiprop Accused Judgment 1.The accused person Johana Kimolop Kiprop was charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. That on 7/5/2024 at Chepyuan Sub-Location, Molosirwe Location, Mogotio Sub-County within Baringo County he unlawfully killed Joseph Komen Kandie. 2.He pleaded not guilty on 10/6/2024. 3.On 23/6/2026, the parties entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Section 137A of the Criminal Procedure Code whereby the accused person pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. 4.The accused also pleaded guilty to the facts that :-On the morning of 17th May 2024, the deceased in this case Joseph Komen Kandie together with Samuel Kiplagat and Evans Koech Ruto were assigned work by one Duncan Kiptoo. The work involved putting up a fence around the compound of Duncan Kiptoo for which they were paid Kshs. 300/= each. After assigning them the work Duncan Kiptoo left the three at his compound and went to run some errands.At around 1300 hours the same day the three finished fencing and went to Duncan Kiptoo’s home to take traditional liquor. At Kiptoo’s homestead they found his father one William Komen who joined them in drinking the liquor. They were also joined in the drinking by another man who had a power saw and wanted to talk to the deceased about some trees in the deceased’s compound that the deceased had earlier expressed interest in cutting for sale. William Komen overhead the conversation between the man and the deceased and got concerned since he knew the trees were family property.He inquired from the deceased whether he had involved other members of his family before arriving at the decision to cut and sell the trees. The conversation between the deceased and William escalated into a quarrel and later a fight forcing the man with a power saw to leave before receiving a clear answer on whether he could cut the trees or not.The accused person Johana Kimolop Kiprop visited Duncan Kiptoo’s homestead and found the two, fighting. He tried to separate them but was thrown to the ground by the deceased. On rising up he took a wooden rustic round pole which had hooks that was nearby and hit the deceased with it on the head and face and the deceased fell down and became unconscious.Duncan Kiptoo who was yet to get back home from his errands was informed about the incident by his wife one Mercy Chepkonga Chebii on phone. He rushed home and organized for the transportation of the deceased to Mogotio Sub-County hospital from where he was referred to Nakuru Provincial General Hospital for further treatment. He was admitted at Nakuru Provincial General Hospital until the night of 8th May, 2024 when he succumbed.His death was reported at Mogotio Police Station on 9th May, 2024. Officers from DCI Mogotio proceeded to Nakuru Provincial General Hospital where they confirmed that the deceased had passed on. They then proceeded to Chepyuan area within Mogotio Sub-County where they recovered the rustic wooden pole with three hooks at the end, which was kept as an exhibit.Postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased on 16th May, 2024 at the Nakuru County Referral Hospital by Doctor Titus Ngulungu who formed the opinion that the cause of death was severe head injury attended by skull fracture and epidural hematoma secondary to mass effect due to blunt head trauma.The accused was arrested on the 23rd of May, 2024 along Kamnyangale-Mugurini road and escorted to Mogotio police station where he was booked awaiting arraignment in court.The police file was compiled and the accused person charged with the offence of Murder now reduced to Manslaughter upon request for plea bargain. 5.The accused person pleaded guilty to the facts and was convicted on his own plea of guilt. 6.The issue for determination is what is the appropriate sentence. 7.During mitigation and sentence hearing – Ms. Omari for the State submitted that the accused was a 1st offender. that the deceased was the Aggressor. That the Deceased was the uncle to the Accused person that he got into a fight with another and the incident happened when the accused was trying to separate the 2 . He got injured – got angered, hit the deceased. 8.That there were conciliatory talks and there was compensation but even with that a life was lost . She submitted that in the circumstances, she relied on Republic v Amonyeke & another [2026] KEHC 7211 (KLR) That the families of the deceased and that of the accused reconciled, That there was compensation. the Accused expressed genuine remorse, and the accused was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. She proposed 5 years imprisonment arguing that the same was supported by the facts of case. 9.Ms. Barasa for the accused person submitted that the Accused was convicted of manslaughter, that he was a 1st time offender, after Plea bargain he had saved court’s time. that the accused was the 1st born child and his father was physically challenged and depended on the Accused and that the accused also supported his younger siblings. That the accused worked as a carpenter before his arrest, supporting his family and children. That one of his siblings in university had since deferred his studies. That the circumstances of the offence are mitigating . That the accused was separating a fight and in the process a life was lost –that the Report is positive/families have reconciled – there is healing, restorative justice : he relied on R vs John Kimiti Mwaniki [2017] & eKLR where the court put emphasis on the proposition that Sentencing must take into Account circumstances of the offence, offenders remorse – possibility of rehabilitation – (Kurekebika) and the court meted lenient sentence.It was submitted that was tragic consequence of a spontaneous altercation – not planned/pre-meditated that the Accused is truly remorseful. Counsel urged the court to show mercy and impose a non-custodial sentence which would allow te accused to continue supporting the family especially his disabled father – and be productive member of the society. the court was urged to consider the reconciliation between the families and was referred to Philip Muthiani Kathiwa v R [2015]eKLR where court took into account reconciliation between both the families – the offenders remorse, circumstances of the offence – lenient sentence for manslaughter. the accused’s prayer is that the court grants non-custodial sentence. 10.It is noteworthy that the State would like a custodial sentence – the accused seeks a non-custodial sentence. I sought a Pre-sentence Report- it was filed by PACs on 2/7/2026. The PACs Officer noted that the families of the accused and the deceased went through a reconciliation where Kshs. 200,000/= was paid to cater for fees for the younger children of the deceased. Annexed to the PACs report was a document headed “minutes of reconciliation meeting between the family of Joseph Kandie Komen and the family of the Accused Johana Kimolop Kiprop” held on 17/5/2025. 11.From the minutes the same was held to discuss the incident leading to the death of the deceased, compensation for the burial expenses, reconciliation and resolution of the court pending case.i.That the families regretted the incident – in order to allow both families to heal.ii.That the sum of Kshs. 200,000/= had been paid via MPESA – to the Mpesa account of an uncle.iii.That the families committed to live together in peace – and agreed that this were no longer interested in the Criminal Proceedings before this court and expected that the court would act on these minutes and withdraw the case. 12.Pursuant to the Sentence Policy Guidelines – 2023 – the court in sentencing a person found guilty of manslaughter ought to consider the culpability of the accused person, the kind of weapon used, and injuries caused – the mitigating factor include the remorse of the accused person age, possibility of rehabilitation and pursuant to Article 159 (2) (a) of the Constitution - the issue of the restoration of family relations. 13.However, the objectives of sentencing also include retribution, rehabilitation of the accused person. 14.The postmortem report shows that the cause of death was severe head injury attended by skull fracture and epidural hematoma and mass effect due to blunt head injury. The facts are that the accused struck the deceased once. 15.I have carefully considered the authorities cited- Amonyeke, where the court gave a sentence of 5 years imprisonment – John Kamiti Mwaniki on the possibility of rehabilitation and Philip Muthiani Kathiwa where the court meted out 2years imprisonment and 1 year Probation Supervision. 16.It is evident from the record that the accused has been in custody since 27/5/2024 when he was committed to custody. It is also evident that the incident was spontaneous, that the accused person reacted and hit the deceased – though he hit him hard, causing a fracture of the head. 17.I have seen the reconciliation document – while it is up to the parties to agree on what is to be done – it is evident that nothing was paid the immediate family of the deceased – and there is nothing on the record of the minutes to show that any provision has been made for the children of the deceased as stated by the PAC’s Officer. 18.It is important when DPP accepts these reconciliation reports to screen them for compliance with Article 27, and 159(3) of the of the Constitution to ensure that the spouse especially where it is a widow, and the children – are involved – and included – and that their views are also recorded. 19.In this case I noted that the widow and her children were present – but compensation, if part of the reconciliation should also get to the family of the deceased. 20.The importance here is that the DPP by accepting these reconciliation report acknowledges the role of Alternative Justice Systems in the resolution of Criminal Cases – in that AJS assists in resolving the underlying issues to some of the criminal acts – and the society/community is the better for it as families, communities come together to restore peace, harmony and provide for the prevention of more crime – particularly from the same parties. 21.Section 205 of the Penal Code provides for imprisonment for life. However, for this accused person the mitigating factors are in his favour – to serve the objectives of sentencing – the accused is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment– 2 years to be served in custody with effect from 27/5/2024 and three years on Probation Supervision upon completion of the terms of imprisonment. 22.While on Probation Supervision, the PACs officer to follow up on the commitments made to the family of the deceased. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KABARNET HIGH COURT THIS 17TH JULY, 2026.MUMBUA T MATHEKAJUDGEIn the presence of:-CA Gladys/Momanyi.Accused Present.Mr. Koech for State.Ms Barasah for Accused.