https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11721

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI** **HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. E056 OF 2024** **REPUBLIC ---------------------------------------------------------PROSECUTION** **VS** **GEOFREY KIPRONO LAGAT----------------------------------------ACCUSED** **RULING** 1. The accused person in this matter was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The accused entered into a plea bargain agreement with the state which agreement he signed on the 24th February 2026. 3. The plea agreement was filed in court on the 24th February 2026 and adopted by the court on 24th February 2026. 4. The murder charges were dropped and in substitution thereof the accused was charged with Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal Code. 5. The Manslaughter information was read over to the accused and he pleaded guilty to the charge. 6. The facts were subsequently read over to the accused and he admitted the same adding that he was in a love relationship with the deceased and he did not intend to kill her. 7. This court convicted the accused on his own plea of guilty and invited the victim’s mother and father to give their views on the matter before the court could proceed to sentence the accused. 8. After the parents of the deceased had addressed the court the advocate for the accused Ms Ndiege urged the court to allow the accused person to address the court and apologize to the parents of the deceased before they could leave the courtroom. 9. The following is what the accused said in that address; “***I am sorry I was also affected by the death. The deceased died as we were having sex. I did not beat the deceased. She died in the course of acting phonographic movies. When I left the house, I fled thinking of killing myself. I then decided to call the deceased’s sister. I disclosed the issue to my cousin who took me to the police. I took myself to the police. I was in shock that is why I left’’.*** 10. Upon the accused making that statement this court realized that the accused person was actually not offering an unequivocal -clear, unambiguous and unconditional plea of guilt. 11. The court promptly invited the advocate to comment on the implication of the statement by the accused but counsel stated that she was keen on proceeding with the plea agreement. In effect telling the court that the plea of guilty should still be maintained not withstanding what the accused had stated. 12. The defense urged the court to call for a pre-sentence report and the court called for one. 13. On 27th April 2026 the matter came up for receipt of the pre-sentence report and mitigation. 14. The presentence report had already been forwarded to the court but before the court could embark on a consideration of it, this court perused the autopsy report and noted that the cause of death of the deceased had not been established and the pathologist had indicated that it was pending toxicology. The postmortem report was produced by the prosecutor and marked PExhibit 1. 15. The toxicology report had also been produced as P Exhibit 2 and 3. 16. The toxicology report dated 7th October 2024 read; **“the postmortem sample of the deceased were examined for chemically toxic substance with negative results’’.** 17. The court demanded to know from the prosecutor what then was the cause of death given those set of facts and the prosecutor indicated that the same was undetermined. 18. Counsel for the accused told the court that the plea was unequivocal and with that statement the court reserved the matter for a Ruling in the interests of justice. 19. In recording a guilty plea for any offence, the court is enjoined to ensure that the plea of guilty is unequivocal and where the court is persuaded that the plea is not unequivocal, the court has a duty to reject such a plea. 20. A guilty plea has consequences that may be incurable even on appeal. It must therefore be entered in the clearest of cases and an accused must never be convicted where the court is convinced that the plea entered is equivocal. 21. The defense counsel was emphatic that the plea was unequivocal but this court disagrees with the position taken by counsel. The court must ensure that the fair trial rights of an accused are safeguarded even where there is a plea Agreement negotiated between the parties. The Constitution under Article 20 (b) requires this court to adopt the interpretation that most favors the enforcement of a right or fundamental freedom. 22. In the instant case the court considers that if the plea of guilty was to be sustained by this court in the face of the facts before it, that would be tantamount to denying the accused his fair trial rights. 23. The court notes that if it were to hold the plea to be unequivocal and enter a plea of guilty as per the plea agreement, the accused would not have received a fair trial as envisaged under Article 25 and 50 of the Constitution. 24. A plea of guilty would mean that the accused waives his right to a full trial during which he would have the opportunity to challenge the evidence. 25. Further, he would also be precluded from appealing against the conviction yet it is clear from the statement he made in answer to the facts that he denies committing the offence. In *Olel v Republic* [1989] KLR 444, the court held that:- **“Where a plea is unequivocal, an appeal against conviction does not lie. Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) does not merely limit the right of appeal in such cases but bars it completely.”** 1. The accused would be greatly prejudiced if this court was to accept the plea of guilty in the circumstances put forth by the accused. He basically denied committing the offence and alluded to what he believes was a natural course in the course of sexual intercourse. 2. In **Alexander** **Lukoye Malika v Republic [2015]eKLR** the Court of Appeal identified the situations in which a conviction based on a plea of guilty can be interfered with as follows: “A court may only interfere with a situation where an accused person has pleaded guilty to a charge where the plea is imperfect, ambiguous or unfinished such that the trial court erred in treating it as a plea of guilty. Another situation is where an accused person pleaded guilty as a result of mistake or misapprehension of the facts. An appellate court may also interfere where the charge laid against an accused person to which he has pleaded guilty discloses no offence known to law. Also, where upon admitted facts the Appellant could not in law have been convicted of the offence charged.” 3. Accordingly, if the plea is equivocal, the court has a duty to step in and reject the plea agreement to obviate the dangers identified in the authority cited above. The statement made by the accused in the course of the recording the answer to the facts put in great doubt the voluntariness of the plea of guilt and if those facts are accepted as the law demands then the facts would not disclose any offence on his part. 4. The decision in **Alexander** **Lukoye Malika v Republic [2015]eKLR** clearly stipulates that a trial court has a duty to satisfy itself that a guilty plea is unequivocal before treating it as such. 5. The manner of recording of a plea is provided for in Section 207(1)and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as hereunder: "(1) The substance of the charge shall be stated to the accused person by the court, and he shall be asked whether he pleads not guilty, guilty or guilty subject to a plea agreement; (2) If the accused person admits the truth of the charge otherwise than by a plea agreement his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him, and the court shall convict him and pass sentence upon or make an order against him, unless there appears to it suffcient cause to the contrary: Provided that after conviction and before passing sentence or making any order the court may permit or require the complainant to outline to the court the facts upon which the charge is founded." [See Ombena v Republic [1981] eKLR]. 6. If the court finds a sufficient cause not to pass an order against an accused person who has pleaded guilty but the plea is not unequivocal, the trial court is not helpless and may make an order that would meet the ends of justice. 7. Section 137F (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the court to determine and be satisfied that there exists a factual basis of the plea agreement after the prosecutor lays the facts before the court. 8. The facts as presented by the prosecutor did not disclose the cause of death thus to accept a plea of guilty in the circumstances would be prejudicial to the accused person. 9. This court finds that the plea of guilt by the accused is equivocal and rejects the same. 10. The order that commends itself is this, that the case against the accused person shall proceed to a full trial before another Judge of this court. 11. The prosecution shall elect before that court whether they still want to pursue murder or manslaughter or better still in the face of the facts before the court consider a special course to be determined by the DPP in exercise of his authority and power under **Article 157(11)** of the **Constitution**. 12. The court thus rejects the guilty plea and directs that this matter shall be placed before the Presiding judge of the Division for allocation to another judge for final disposal. 13. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED VIRTUALLY** at **NAIROBI** this **17TH** day of **JUNE, 2026.** 1. **M. MUTETI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Habiba: Court Assistant Ms Njoroge for the state Ms Ndiege for the Accused