https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10878

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ITEN** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E010 OF 2024** **REPUBLIC………………………………………………………………………..PROSECUTION** **VERSUS** **ISAACK KIPRUTO KIPROTICH *alias* CHEPKILEMBU…………………………..ACCUSED** **RULING ON SENTENCE** 1. The accused, then 30 years old, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to **Section 203** as read with **Section 204** of the **Penal Code**. The particulars were that on 10/06/2024, at Kapkesum Village, in Keiyo North Sub-County, within Elgeyo Marakwet County, he murdered **William Kiprotich Cheruiyot**,his own father. 2. **Mr. E. K. Cheruiyot Advocate** represents the accused, while **Prosecution Counsel** **Ms. Racheal Mwangi** appears for State. 3. The accused took plea on 1/07/2024 and pleaded not guilty. The parties however subsequently entered into plea bargain discussions which eventually culminated to the plea bargain Agreement dated 25/11/2025, which indicated that the accused had agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of Manslaughter, and to then let the Court determine the sentence. 4. The matter then came up for plea bargain hearing before me on 6/11/2025. The accused was sworn on oath, and after examining him, I recorded my satisfaction that **Section 137F-137G** of the **Criminal Procedure Code**, governing the plea bargain process had been complied with, that the accused had signed the agreement together with his Counsel, voluntarily, and without any coercion, that he fully understood the effect thereof, and that members of the family had been involved in the process. I thus allowed the accused to take a fresh plea, now on the fresh charge of Manslaughter contrary to **Section 202** as read with **Section 205** of the **Penal Code**, which he did, and upon which he then pleaded guilty. The statement of facts of the case (factual basis) was then read out to the accused, basically as follows: ***“The deceased and the accused used to live together. On 10/06/2024 at around 10:30 pm, the accused, Isaac Kipruto Kiprotich alias Chepkilembu went home at Kapkesum Village where his father was sleeping. He wanted to confront his father about the money he had gotten after selling a piece of land.*** ***He found the deceased asleep and woke him up. He then inquired about the money, but the deceased ignored him. A fight ensued between the two, and the accused pushed the deceased who fell. The two continued fighting, and in the process, the accused held the deceased around the neck and strangled him to death.*** ***The accused after noticing his father was dead, looked for a rope from inside his father’s house. He then tied the rope around his father’s neck and tied the other end of the rope to the wooden trusses of the house, for people to think that his father had committed suicide.*** ***He then took his father’s mobile phone make Tecno T101 Black in colour, IMEI 353587875570482 and 353587875570490 and removed the SIM cards. He then went to sleep.*** ***The body of the deceased was later discovered by a neighbour who alerted other people. The matter was reported at Iten Police Station, and investigations commenced. The body of the deceased was taken to Iten County Referral Hospital for preservation and autopsy.*** ***On 12/06/2024 at around 1100hrs, the family members convened to arrange the burial. During the said meeting, the accused confessed to the area chief, one Mr. Abraham Koech and his uncle Albert Kiptoo that he was responsible for the death of his father. The accused was the escorted to Iten Police Station.*** ***The post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased on 14th June, 2024 where the doctor opined that the cause of death was due to bilateral lungs collapse and asphyxia caused by strangulation of the neck manually, by using hands.”*** 1. Prosecution Counsel then produced the Post Mortem Report dated 14/06/2024, the TECNO phone, photographs and Certificate thereto dated 8/07/2024, and the rope referred to, as exhibits. 2. When asked to confirm or refute or comment on the correctness of the said facts as read out, the accused confirmed the same as being correct and true. Satisfied that the statement of facts disclosed sufficient factual basis for the charge, this Court accordingly convicted the accused on the offence of Manslaughter on his own plea of guilty. 3. Regarding the sentence to be meted out, **Ms. Mwangi** informed the Court that there were no previous criminal records relating to the accused. 4. On his part, **Mr. Cheruiyot**, in mitigation, stated that the accused is remorseful, that he was the only son of the deceased, and that the fight was about sale of family land by the deceased. He also asserted that the accused had, by entering into the plea bargain, saved the Court’s time. He contended further that the family has forgiven the accused, and he then prayed for a non-custodial sentence so as to enable the accused get rehabilitated back to the community. 5. I then directed that a pre-sentence Report be prepared and filed, which was done. The Report, dated 29/01/2026, and prepared by the Probation & Aftercare Service Elgeyo Marakwet County, indicated that it had been compiled from information obtained from the Court file, from the offender, family members, relatives, local administration and neighbours. **Determination** 1. The applicable law on sentence for the offence of Manslaughter is **Section 205** of the **Penal Code** which provides as follows: **“Any person who commits the felony of Manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life”** 1. In determining the appropriate sentence to impose, I take into account the Supreme Court decision in thethe case of **Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR)** in which it was 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.** 2. Similarly, the Court of Appeal, in the case of [**Daniel Kipkosgei Letting Vs. Republic**](http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/215923/) **[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. ……..”** 1. 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. ………………………………”** 1. I note that in the Plea Bargain Agreement, the Prosecution recommended a prison sentence of 15 years. 2. With the above guidelines in mind, I have considered the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence. The reason for the altercation and/or fight between the accused and his father (the deceased) is said to have been the alleged sale of family land by the deceased. It is said that the before the killing, the two had been involved in running disagreements over sale of the land by the deceased and squandering the proceeds thereof. The killing of the deceased therefore does not seem to have been a result of a premeditated act. It is said that the family own only about 1 acre after the deceased sold most of the land. I have also taken into account the fact that the accused has been described as a first offender. He also entered into the plea bargain agreement and thus pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of Manslaughter, in the process, saving much judicial time. I have also considered the apparent remorse displayed by the accused. 3. I have also considered the contents, and recommendations of the Pre-sentence Report. The salient observations I make from the Report include, that the clan believes that there is a “curse” within the family since there have been a series of murders within the family committed by family members against each other. The accused also subsequently quickly confessed to the murder even before he had been arrested. The community and the local administration are also said to treat the killing as an accident noting the accused person’s good behaviour and hardworking nature, and want the Court to treat him with leniency. The Report also recommends that the accused be placed on probation I have also taken into account the accused person’s relatively young age of 32 years old, and his evident desire for re-integration to the community to rebuild his life. 4. The above are no doubt, mitigating factors which ought to have a bearing in sentencing. 5. There are however notable aggravating circumstances. For instance, from the Post Mortem Report, it is clear that the manner in which the accused executed the killing was heinous and cruel. The strangling of the deceased with bare hands till death must have been prolonged and very painful to the deceased. This is confirmed by description of the cause of death as “***bilateral lungs collapse and asphyxia caused by strangulation of the neck manually by using bare hands***”. By acting as he did, the accused used excessive force and a degree of violence that was disproportionate and wholly unnecessary. The deceased being an old man, the accused must have already subdued him and there was no need to further strangle him. There is also no proof that the accused faced any imminent threat to his life from the deceased, and even if such threat existed, the opportunity to retreat and de-escalate the situation remained available to the accused. By choosing confrontation over flight, the accused exercised a fatal error in judgment. The accused, by stage-managing the murder scene to appear like a suicide, also worsened the situation. These are clear aggravating circumstances that this Court is duty-bound to consider. 6. In the circumstances, I find that a non-custodial sentence would not be appropriate in this case. Through a needless and rash action by the accused to engage in an unnecessary fight, a human life, his own father’s, was lost and the Court must reiterate that it is not acceptable to take a human life extra-judicially, even if unintended, whatever the circumstances or level of provocation. 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, the period that he will serve the prison sentence shall, in accordance with the provisions of **Section 333(2)** ofthe **Criminal Procedure Act**, be mitigated by a consideration of the period he already served in remand custody. **Final Orders** 1. In circumstances, I make orders as follows: 2. I hereby sentence the accused, **Isaack Kipruto *alias* Chepkilembu**, to serve nine **(9) years** imprisonment. 3. In computing the period to be served in prison, the period already spent by the accused 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 of his arrest, namely, 12/06/2024 (as appears in the Charge Sheet). 4. Right of appeal within 14 days is hereby explained to the accused. **DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026** **……………..……..** **WANANDA JOHN R. ANURO** **JUDGE** **Delivered in the presence of:** | | | | --- | --- | | **Accused present virtually from Eldoret Main Prison** | | | **N/A for Counsel for the accused** | | | **Ms. Muriithi h/b for Ms. Mwangi for the State** | | | **Court Assistant: Brian Kimathi** | |