https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8130

Republic v Komoltich (Criminal Case E009 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8130 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8130 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kapenguria Criminal Case E009 of 2025 RPV Wendoh, J June 11, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Isaac Pkemoi Komoltich Accused Sentence 1.Isaac Pkemoi Komoltich faced a charge of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.Following a plea agreement dated 25/5/2026, the above charge was substituted with a charge of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. 3.The particulars of the charge were that on 2/7/2025 at Muruny area, Mbayai Location Pokot South Sub-County in West Pokot County, unlawfully killed Paulo Karamunya. 4.The Accused pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted. The matter is now before me for purposes of sentencing. 5.Sentencing is an exercise of the court’s discretion guided by the Constitution and any other relevant laws and the 2016 Judiciary Sentencing Guidelines Policy. 6.Despite the above guidelines however, sentencing remains an exercise of the Court’s discretion. 7.The Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another -V- Republic (2017) eKLR confirmed that fact when the court said at paragraph “(72) We wish to make it very clear that these guidelines in no way replace judicial discretion. They are advisory and not mandatory. They are geared to promoting consistency and transparency in sentencing hearings. They are also aimed at promoting public understanding of the sentencing process”. 8.At page 15 Paragraph 4.1, of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, what the court should consider in sentencing as provided for as follows;-i.Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner;ii.Deterrence; to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences;iii.Rehabilitation; to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person;iv.Restorative justice; to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages;v.Community Protection; to police the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation; to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.vii.Reconciliation; to mend the relationship between the offender the victim and the communityviii.Reintegration; To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society. 9.In Muruatetu’s Case (Supra), the Supreme court also set out some mitigating factors that the court may consider during sentencing, as follows: -1.Age of the offender;2.Being a first offender;3.Whether the offender pleaded guilty;4.Character and record of the offender;5.Commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence;6.Remorsefulness of the offender;7.The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender;8.Any other factor that the court considers relevant. 10.The Prosecution Counsel Ms. Koech, did not have Accused’s previous records and he was treated as a first offender. 11.Mr. Bororio, Counsel for Accused in Mitigation, told the court hat Accused is aged thirty-one (31) years, married with three (3) children who are all minors; that he is the sole bread winner and is very remorseful for the unfortunate incident and begs for leniency and forgiveness; that the deceased’s family has already forgiven him. 12.The court asked the probation Officer to make an enquiry and present to court a presentence report to help guide the court on the nature of sentence. From the report, the family of the Accused and that of the deceased, who was accused’s father-in-law, have commenced the Pokot traditional mode of compensation for Murder ‘Lapai’; Which is due to be completed in 2027. The accused was otherwise a person of good conduct but sometimes exhibited bad temper and that he had a mental condition for which he was taking drugs but about the time of the commission of the offence, he had refused to take the drugs. When he was arraigned in court, he was sent for, treated and plea was taken after he was certified to plead to the charge. 13.The Court has taken into account all those mitigating factors that Accused is a first offender; he pleaded guilty to the charge and did not waste the court’s time. He is a family man with a wife and three young children. 14.Compensation “Lapai’ is partially done meaning the families of Accused and deceased have reconciled. However, the offence committed was a serious one. A life was lost and the family lost the love and companionship of the deceased. A strong message must be sent by the court to the offenders and others on the sanctity of life and that it must not be taken lightly. 15.The court therefore considers that Accused should be given some deterrent sentence and also do undergo some rehabilitation in a Correction Institution before he is released back to the community. He is therefore sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment. Sentence to commence on 17/7/2025. 16.Right of Appeal in fourteen (14) days. SENTENCE DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAPENGURIA THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.R. WENDOHJUDGEIn the Presence of:-Prosecution Counsel – Ms. Koech.Accused – presentMr. Bororio for accused.Hellen/Kachela – Court Assistants