https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11294

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL CASE NO. E003 OF 2025 REPUBLIC ………………………...…..…………..……..…..PROSECUTION VERSUS LESAIGILIE LENALEPO …………….….…….………..……..….ACCUSED The Charge SENTENCE 1. LESAIGILIE LENALEPO, the Accused herein, was charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read together with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the stated offence are that;- “On 26th December, 2024 at Kabete Location in Kabete Sub- County within Kiambu County the Accused Person murdered one DAN SOWANI LENALEPO, his biological son. 2. The Accused pleaded not guilty and the plea was duly entered. Plea-Bargaining Agreement (PBA) 3. The Prosecution and the Defence entered into a Plea-Bargaining Agreement (PBA) dated 9th March, 2026. It was signed by the Accused, Defence Counsel – Ms. Janet W. Waithaka, and the Prosecution Counsel – Ms. Caroline Muriu. Consequently, on 7th May, 2026 the Accused pleaded guilty to the offence of Manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. The Plea HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 1 of 9 Bargaining Agreement was availed in Court together with Court’s compliance form for recording the Plea Agreement and the Deceased’s post-mortem report dated 31st December, 2024. 4. After taking him through the applicable law, this Court was satisfied that the Accused Person understood his rights identified under Section 137F of the Criminal Procedure Code as signified by his signature on the Court Form. Consequently, the Plea Agreement was adopted as part of the Court Record. 5. Accordingly, the Accused Person was convicted for the offence of Manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code on his own plea of guilty. Under Section 205 of the Penal Code, the punishment for Manslaughter is imprisonment for life. Mitigation – 11 th June, 2026 6. In mitigation, Defence Counsel noted that the Deceased was the Accused Person’s biological son. She added that the Accused Person is deeply remorseful and lives daily with the regret that his son’s life was taken by him, his father. 7. Ms. Waithaka underscored that the incident was not pre-meditated and the Accused Person lost control of himself during a heated argument with his son. As an elderly person, 67 years of age, Defence Counsel observed that the Accused Person is of declining physical and mental health; and posed little change of re-offending. 8. Having been arrested on 26th December, 2024, and having also been in custody from then to date and continuing, Ms. Waithaka concluded HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 2 of 9 by proposing that the time served thus far in custody is sufficient, and prayed that the Court metes out a non-custodial sentence. Response to Mitigation 9. In response to the mitigation, the Prosecution Counsel confirmed that the Accused Person is a first offender with no previous records. Ms. Muriu observed that by entering into a Plea Bargain at an early stage, the Accused Person had saved the Family a lengthy and emotionally draining full trial in which family members would have to testify. She further noted that the same conserved scarce judicial time and resources. 10. Ms. Muriu urged the Court to consider the circumstances of the case and the blood relationship between the Accused and the Deceased. While not opposing a non-custodial sentence, Prosecution Counsel drew the Court’s gaze to Page 3 of the Probation Pre-Sentence Report dated 10th June, 2026, which outlines the Accused Person’s wife’s sentiments that the Accused should be placed on probation but should be ordered to stay away from her. Personal Statement in Mitigation 11. The Accused Person, in rejoinder and giving his personal statement in mitigation, denied the statements contained in the Probation Pre- Sentence Report that he had a history of domestic violence against his wife. 12. After expressing his remorse for the offence, the Accused Person stated his willingness to even stay away from his wife and to instead HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 3 of 9 live with one of his sons if he were to be released on probation. The Probation Pre-Sentence Report (PPSR) 13. The Probation Pre-Sentence Report dated 10th June, 2026 was largely positive. It noted that the family views were relatively positive and they pleaded for the Court’s leniency during sentencing. The Accused’s wife, who is also the mother of the Deceased, was recorded as feeling threatened by the idea of sharing a roof with the Accused. She also averred that the Accused had a long history of domestic violence against her. 14. The Accused’s sons expressed their willingness to accommodate their father and to help him reintegrate into society. They are also recorded as pledging to ensure their mother’s safety by ensuring she lives independently as per her stated wishes. 15. The Community’s sentiments were recorded as being in favour of the Accused Person receiving community-based rehabilitation. The Probation Report did not find any hostility towards the Accused by either the Family or the community that would create concern as to the Accused Person’s safety post-release. The community is willing to aid the Family in rehabilitation, reintegration, supervision, and guarding against recidivism. 16. The Report found the following criminogenic needs with respect to the Accused: HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 4 of 9 a) An established history of gender-based violence that seemed to be condoned by the local culture and traditions; b) Anger management and lack of skills towards pacific resolutions of conflicts without resorting to violence; AND, c) A demonstrated history of alcoholism. 17. The Report proceeded to propose that these could be addressed by a misture of person-centered guidance and counselling as well as leveraging on the established family and community support systems. To the Probation Officers mind, these factors, as well as the Accused Person’s age lean in favour of a non-custodial sentence. Summary of the Facts of the case 18. The agreed facts of the case as presented by the Prosecution and accepted by the Accused Person are as follows: a) The Accused Person and the Deceased used to live together in a single-roomed house within the Kabete Location of Kiambu County. The Accused Person lent his son, the Deceased, the sum of KShs.1,000.00 which the Deceased was to refund. b) When the Accused Person demanded repayment, the Deceased refused to do repay the sum lent. The two had a verbal disagreement on the same, which led to the HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 5 of 9 Accused Person storming out of the house to a local alcohol den to consume alcohol. c) Upon returning home, and while in an intoxicated state, the Accused Person once more demanded for a refund, and the Deceased once again refused to refund the monies. A scuffle then ensued between the two, with the Accused resorting to wielding a knife. As the physical confrontation escalated, the Deceased wrestled with the Accused, and while falling backwards he dragged the Accused onto him leading to the knife plunging into the Deceased’s chest. d) The Deceased lost his life as a result of the injury sustained, and the post-mortem report dated 31/12/2024 recorded that “ the Deceased was stabbed by a person known to him using a sharp object and died on the spot” with the cause of death being “severe hemorrhage due to penetrating chest injury due to sharp force trauma.” e) The Accused Person was initially charged with the offence of Murder, which has now been reduced to Manslaughter. Analysis and Determination 19. The court in this matter is guided by the provisions of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 as amended by the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Muruatetu & Another –vs- HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 6 of 9 Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 Others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition 15 & 16 of 2015 (Consolidated)) [2017] KESC 2 (KLR). 20. Under Section 205 of the Penal Code, the accused is liable face a punishment of life imprisonment. In April 2025, the Supreme Court held that a life imprisonment sentence is lawful and applicable. This was the finding in the cases of Republic –vs- Ayako (Petition E002 of 2024) [2025] KESC 20 (KLR) (Ayako case) and Republic –vs- Manyeso (Petition E013 of 2024) [2025] KESC 16 (KLR) (Manyeso case) where it was held that only Parliament has the power to revise a sentence prescribed under a statute. 21. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court can exercise its discretion on sentencing given the circumstances of the case. The Prosecution is not opposed to a non-custodial sentence, save that it should be accompanied by safeguards. The Accused Person has prayed for leniency and a non-custodial sentence. 22. With both sides seemingly agreeing on a non-custodial sentence, and with the Probation Pre-Sentencing Report recommending the same, this Court is minded to release the Accused on probation, but with safeguards that protect his wife against gender-based violence and also requirements for guidance and counseling, anger management classes, and close monitoring by the County Probation Office. 23. The court notes the support which the family of the accused has offered him during his time in custody after the incident and even in HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 7 of 9 court. Disposition 24. In the result, I hereby sentence the Accused to imprisonment for a term of four (4) years commencing on 26th December, 2024 when he was arrested. As of today, 24th July, 2026 the Accused Person has served 1 Year, 6 Months, and 29 days of that sentence. The remaining 2 Years, 5 Months, and 2 Days of that sentence shall be served as a non-custodial term under probation which shall be supervised by the County Probation Officer. 25. During the probation period, the Accused Person shall: a) Live separately from his wife, i.e., not reside in the home in which she resides; b) Live with one of his sons, and to inform the County Probation Officer of that residence and which son he is living with; c) Undertake such anger management, guidance and counselling, and rehabilitation sessions as shall be directed or approved by the County Probation Officer; d) Remain a resident of the County in which he shall report for probation, and if he changes county of residence, shall inform the outgoing County Probation Officer before such relocation, and thereafter report to the new County Probation Officer within 3 days of completing such relocation; AND, HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 8 of 9 e) Shall fully comply with the applicable provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act [ Chapter 64 of the Laws of Kenya] and the terms set-out herein; failure to which Section 7 and/or Section 8 of the Act shall be applied. 26. Unless otherwise lawfully held custodially, the Accused Person is to be forthwith released into Probation, and to report to the County Probation Officer with a copy of this Sentence Decision and the extracted Probation Order and relevant documents within 7 days of the date of this Sentence Decision. 27. With the best wishes of this Court to LESAIGILIE LENALEPO for a long life in which he makes amends for his actions and lives without any further conflict with the law; Orders Accordingly and File Closed Accordingly. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU ON THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2026. ______________________________________ BAHATI MWAMUYE MBS JUDGE Delivered in the presence of: 1. Accused Present in Court 2. Ms. Caroline Muriu – Prosecution Counsel 3. Ms. Janet W. Waithaka - Defence Counsel 4. Mr. Martin Mwenda - Court Assistant HCCR. CASE NO.E003 OF 2025 RULING ON SENTENCE - Page 9 of 9