https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12535

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E030 OF 2023** **REPUBLIC** ........................................................................................................**PROSECUTION** **VERSUS** **LEONARD KIPROTICH MARITIM alias KAMALIZA** ......................................**ACCUSED** **SENTENCE** **1.** On 14th May 2026, the accused, Leonard Kiprotich Maritim alias Kamaliza, was convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. The plea was entered pursuant to a plea agreement made under sections 137A–137O of the Criminal Procedure Code. I was satisfied that the agreement and plea were voluntary, informed and unequivocal. **2.** The agreed facts were that on 26th November 2023 at about 5.00 p.m., the accused and the deceased fought at Tendwet Shopping Centre. Members of the public separated them and disarmed the deceased, who had an axe and a club. Later, while apparently intoxicated, the deceased went to the accused’s home, called him out and threatened to finish him. A further confrontation followed. At about 1.00 a.m. the accused informed Hillary Bett that he had killed the deceased. The deceased was found outside the accused’s house with cut wounds to the lower chin and right side of the abdomen. A panga was recovered. The accused initially fled when questioned but later surrendered himself to the police. The post-mortem established the cause of death as massive haemoperitoneum secondary to liver rupture. **3.** In mitigation, learned counsel submitted that the accused was 27 years old at the time of the offence; is a first offender; comes from a humble family; has a sickly single mother; surrendered to the police; and acted in response to an intoxicated and aggressive deceased. Counsel further stated that the accused sustained an injury above the left eye, has expressed remorse, and participated in a customary cleansing and reconciliation process with the deceased’s family. The Court was urged to impose a lenient sentence. **4.** I have considered the mitigation, the plea agreement, the undisputed facts, the pre-sentence report dated 15th June 2026, the victim impact information contained in that report, the period the accused has spent in custody, and the applicable law and sentencing principles. **5.** Section 205 of the Penal Code provides that a person convicted of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. This Court has a duty weigh the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the interests of the victim and community, the prospects of rehabilitation and proportionality, among other factors before meting out a sentence , **6.** In Republic v Jackson Ekital Wuyobas [2018] KEHC 1913 (KLR), the Court observed that sentences for manslaughter must reflect the circumstances of the killing, including provocation, the use of excessive force and whether the offender was the aggressor or acted in self-defence. Similarly, in Republic v Karanja (Criminal Case E014 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 11027 (KLR), the Court imposed three years’ probation following a plea bargain where the killing was unpremeditated, the deceased was the aggressor, the offender had favourable rehabilitative prospects, and probation supervision was recommended. **7.** The death of a human being is irreversible. The accused used a lethal weapon and inflicted a wound to a vulnerable part of the body. Those are serious aggravating considerations. A probation recommendation does not bind the Court, and reconciliation does not extinguish criminal responsibility or diminish the value of the deceased’s life. **8.** There are, however, substantial mitigating circumstances. The incident was not premeditated. The agreed facts portray the deceased as intoxicated, repeatedly aggressive and armed, and as having pursued the accused to his home after an earlier fight had been stopped. The accused was a young adult, is a first offender, surrendered to the police, accepted responsibility through a guilty plea, saved judicial time, and has expressed remorse. **9.** The social inquiry found that the accused had no prior criminal or antisocial history and was not viewed as a danger to the community. His family is willing to receive and support him. The local administration and community expressed no hostility to his return. Importantly, the two families undertook a customary cleansing and reconciliation process; the secondary victims reported that they had forgiven him and held no grudge against him. The probation officer assessed him as suitable for structured community rehabilitation and recommended three years’ probation. **10.** Having balanced all the mitigating factors, I am satisfied that this is an exceptional case in which the objectives of accountability, rehabilitation, reintegration and community protection can be met through a stringent probation order. The accused’s culpability is reduced by the deceased’s sustained aggression. **11.** Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act empowers the High Court, where the statutory considerations favour conditional release, to make a probation order in lieu of other punishment. Under section 5(1), such an order may run for not less than six months and not more than three years. I have explained to the accused, in ordinary language, the effect of the order and the consequences of breach as required by section 4(3), and he has expressed his willingness to comply. **ORDERS** **a.** The accused is placed on probation for a period of three (3) years from the date of this order, under the supervision of the Probation and Aftercare Service in the area where he shall reside. **b.** During the probation period, the accused shall report to the supervising probation officer as directed; attend and complete counselling on anger management, peaceful conflict resolution and responsible alcohol use; maintain good conduct; abstain from violence and the unlawful possession or use of offensive weapons; and comply with every lawful rehabilitation and supervision direction issued by the probation officer. **12.** It is so ordered. **ORDERS** **a.** The accused is placed on probation for a period of three (3) years from the date of this order, under the supervision of the Probation and Aftercare Service in the area where he shall reside. **b.** During the probation period, the accused shall report to the supervising probation officer as directed; attend and complete counselling on anger management, peaceful conflict resolution and responsible alcohol use; maintain good conduct; abstain from violence and the unlawful possession or use of offensive weapons; and comply with every lawful rehabilitation and supervision direction issued by the probation officer. **12.** It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.** T. A. ODERA JUDGE 30.7.26 Appearances:- The Convict Miss Osoro H/B for Mr Kimaru for the State Mr. Waweru for the convict Mr. Busienei – Court Assistant Accused : Present