https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7248

Republic v Mackenzie (Criminal Case 9 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 7248 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7248 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Case 9 of 2023 DR Kavedza, J May 26, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Evans Mackenzie Accused Judgment 1.The accused, Evans Mackenzie, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence indicate that on 26th April 2019 at Mutego area in Dagoretti sub-county within Nairobi County murdered Janet Aketch. 2.However, following successful plea negotiations with the state, the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. He signed a plea agreement on 3rd February 2025. The accused was therefore charged with the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 205 of the Penal Code cap 63 Laws of Kenya. 3.The brief facts, as outlined in the plea agreement, are as follows. On the night of 23rd April 2019 at Mutego, Dagoretti Sub-County, the deceased, Janet Aketch, sustained fatal burn injuries after allegedly being set on fire by the accused, with whom she cohabited in a plot comprising 37 mabati houses. Earlier that evening, at about 8.00 p.m., the couple engaged in a domestic quarrel which escalated into a physical altercation. The caretaker, Amos Nyabuti, intervened after hearing screams and found the accused strangling the deceased. He separated them, whereupon the deceased fled, while the accused warned the caretaker not to interfere in family matters. 4.At about 10.00 p.m., neighbours, including Maureen Kiviza, Zaina Achieng, Joseph Wanyonyi and Bernard Otieno, heard the deceased screaming that she was on fire and calling for help. Bernard Otieno heard her cry, “Mbona nadhulumiwa na hamnisaidii?” The deceased, who was half naked and engulfed in flames, ran towards the gate but found it locked and returned to the house. The accused and neighbours poured water on her, and the caretaker wrapped her in a blanket before she was rushed to Kenyatta National Hospital for treatment. 5.The accused was rescued from mob justice by police officers on patrol and later detained at Riruta Police Station. The deceased succumbed to her injuries while undergoing treatment. A post-mortem conducted on 7th May 2019 concluded that death resulted from complications arising from second, third- and fourth-degree burns covering 87% of her body. The accused was subsequently found mentally fit to plead. 6.Upon reading the facts to the accused and after confirming that the plea-bargaining process was voluntary, that, the accused's constitutional rights had not been violated during the negotiation process, and further that he was not coerced, the court accepted the plea agreement and convicted the accused accordingly. 7.The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the deceased, albeit without proof of malice aforethought sufficient for murder. The ingredients of manslaughter are therefore established. 8.In mitigation, Mr. Munoko submitted that the accused was deeply remorseful for the events of 23rd April 2019 and had since reformed while in custody. Counsel stated that the accused had learnt a painful lesson and expressed regret for the suffering caused to the deceased’s family. Counsel informed the court that he had met the deceased’s father, Michael, and mother, Lilian Aketch, on 6th May 2025 and conveyed the accused’s apology and request for forgiveness. According to counsel, both parents accepted the apology, forgave the accused unconditionally, and urged him to reform and positively contribute to society upon release. 9.Counsel further stated that the deceased’s mother encouraged the accused spiritually and continued to pray for his transformation. It was submitted that the accused had undertaken several rehabilitation programmes while in prison. Counsel submitted that the accused intended to use the skills acquired in prison to assist others and promote reform within the community. 10.Counsel further stated that the accused was an orphan, had accepted responsibility for his actions, and had expressed willingness to support the deceased’s minor child upon release. It was urged that the offence was not premeditated but arose spontaneously during a domestic dispute. The court was therefore urged to exercise leniency in sentencing. 11.Ms. Maina, learned prosecution counsel, acknowledged that the accused entered into a plea-bargaining agreement, thereby saving judicial time and resources, and further noted that he was a first offender with no previous criminal record. However, counsel urged the court to consider the pre-sentence report and the Bond and Bail Policy Guidelines, which reflected opposition by the Mutego community and local administration to a non-custodial sentence. Counsel submitted that the accused had previously been subjected to mob justice, demonstrating the community’s reaction to the offence. 12.The prosecution emphasised that the deceased had been physically assaulted before being set on fire and endured immense physical and mental suffering before succumbing to her injuries three days later. It was further submitted that the offence was committed in degrading and inhumane circumstances, as the deceased, while half naked, was seen burning before members of the public. 13.Counsel also highlighted the continuing hardship faced by the deceased’s family, including her minor child undergoing treatment for sickle cell disease. The court was urged to note that the accused lacked a fixed abode and required rehabilitation in a custodial setting due to alcohol and substance abuse. 14.This court called for a pre-sentece report which has been duly considered. 15.The post-mortem report established that the deceased sustained second, third- and fourth-degree burns covering approximately 87% of her body. The cause of death was determined to be complications arising from the extensive burn injuries sustained after she was set on fire. 16.The circumstances surrounding the offence were particularly cruel and degrading. Prior to the burning incident, the deceased had been physically assaulted by the accused during a domestic altercation. She was later seen running out of the house while engulfed in flames, half naked, screaming in pain and pleading for assistance before members of the public. The victim ultimately succumbed to her injuries after enduring immense physical and psychological suffering. 17.In mitigation, the accused expressed remorse, referred to his rehabilitation while in custody, and sought leniency from the court. The court has also considered the forgiveness extended by the deceased’s family and the accused’s efforts at spiritual and personal reform while in prison. 18.Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court cannot overlook the gravity of the offence. The accused violently caused the death of his wife in circumstances that were inhumane and traumatic. The deceased left behind a minor child and her death occasioned immense emotional and financial hardship upon her family. 19.Having considered the mitigation, the pre-sentence report, the victim impact statement, and the views of the community, the court is satisfied that a custodial sentence is warranted. A non-custodial sentence would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the sanctity of human life, the need for deterrence, denunciation of domestic violence, and the rehabilitation of the offender. 20.As the Court held in Republic v Mudanya (Criminal Case 22 of 2017) [2023] KEHC 3889 (KLR) (2 May 2023) that the purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the respect for law, maintain a just peaceful and safe society and also to suppress future crime. The object of sentencing is to denounce unlawful conduct; deter the offender; and to send a message to the public that the behavior witnessed in this case is not to be tolerated. 21.The penal section for the offence of manslaughter is contained in section 205 of the Penal Code which provides: -Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. 22.The sentence imposed must therefore balance punishment, deterrence, denunciation of domestic violence, and rehabilitation. In the circumstances of this case, I find that a custodial sentence is appropriate. Accordingly, the convict Evans Mackenzie is sentenced to twenty (20) years’ imprisonment. The sentence shall run from 26th April 2019 the date of his arrest pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026............................D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Munoko for the AccusedMs. Timoi for the ProsecutionKarimi Court Assistant.