Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Nanyuki

Republic v Matea Manyaas [2017] KEHC 5494 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the fatal injury to the deceased was an unintended consequence of the accused's anger and provocation upon finding another man in his bedroom with his wife. The court considered the accused's plea of guilty to manslaughter, his remorse, his status as a first-time offender, and the fact that he had ten minor children dependent on him. The court also took into account the period Matea had already spent in custody (close to two years) and determined that this period constituted sufficient punishment. The court thus sentenced Matea Manyaas to the period already served and ordered his release unless otherwise lawfully held.

Court disposition

accused sentenced to period already served and released

Orders

  • Matea Manyaas is sentenced to the period already served.
  • Matea Manyaas shall be set free from custody unless otherwise lawfully held.

02

Material facts

Parties

Republic

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Tanui

Matea Manyaas

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Period in Custody (months): 22

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Trial / Sentencing Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Matea Manyaas, through counsel, argued that he was a first-time offender, acted out of provocation upon finding another man in his bedroom with his wife, did not intend to kill, and was remorseful. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and has ten minor children dependent on him. Counsel urged the court to consider these mitigating factors and the period already spent in custody.
Respondent
The prosecution confirmed Matea was a first-time offender and did not contest the plea bargain. The prosecution set out the facts, emphasizing the sequence of events leading to the deceased's death, but did not oppose a lenient sentence in light of the plea and mitigating circumstances.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    JOHN ELIPA KALABUS-V-STATE 1988 PNGLR 193 (Papua New Guinea)

    Remorse and contrition, especially when manifested by a plea of guilty, are factors to be weighed in sentencing in favour of the accused.

  2. 02

    Section 205, Penal Code (Kenya)

    The seriousness of manslaughter is reflected in the maximum sentence of life imprisonment under the Penal Code.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the fatal injury to the deceased was an unintended consequence of the accused's anger and provocation upon finding another man in his bedroom with his wife. The court considered the accused's plea of guilty to manslaughter, his remorse, his status as a first-time offender, and the fact that he had ten minor children dependent on him. The court also took into account the period Matea had already spent in custody (close to two years) and determined that this period constituted sufficient punishment. The court thus sentenced Matea Manyaas to the period already served and ordered his release unless otherwise lawfully held.

Obiter and limits

  • Remorse and contrition are significant mitigating factors in sentencing, particularly when demonstrated by a plea of guilty.
  • The maximum sentence for manslaughter under Kenyan law is life imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness with which the legislature views the offence.

Court disposition

accused sentenced to period already served and released

  • Matea Manyaas is sentenced to the period already served.
  • Matea Manyaas shall be set free from custody unless otherwise lawfully held.

Source and reliance status

High Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court

Judgment

[2017] KEHC 5494 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI

CRIMINAL NO. 5 OF 2015

REPUBLIC ………………………………………… STATE

VERSUS

MATEA MANYAAS ………….……………….ACCUSED

RULING ON SENTENCE

1. MATEA MANYAAS (Matea) was arraigned before court on 14th July 2015 and was charged with the offence MurderContrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.Matea pleaded not guilty and in so doing stated:

“I did not do it intentionally”

2. The case was thereafter adjourned severally because prosecution did not receive the exhibit from the government chemist where it was undergoing examination.

3. On 23rd November, 2016 while the court was delivering its Ruling on bail pending trial it suggested that the parties do consider plea bargain. The culmination of that plea bargain was the plea of guilt to the offence of manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal code by Matea.

4. The court received the plea bargain agreement whereupon the prosecution set out the facts of the case as follows:

“That on the 21st day of June 2015 at around 2100 hours the accused arrived from a safari that had taken him about four days. The accused knocked the door of his house where he lived with the deceased Santaiya Matea. The accused knocked the door and noticed that it was not locked from inside, so he pushed the door and entered the house. On entering the house, the accused, the deceased woke up. She looked worried and disturbed and the accused asked her the cause of the worry. All over a sudden a man emerged from their bedroom armed with a rungu and tried to escape. The accused immediately drew his sword as he was attacking the man the deceased stood in middle in defense of the man, blocked the sword with the arm and in the process the deceased was seriously injured.

During the confrontation the assailant escaped, as the accused gave chase. Thereafter the accused lost control of himself and chased everybody around. The accused was cooled down by his brother and together they called for boda boda operator who took the deceased to Kimanju hospital from where she was referred to Nanyuki District Hospital and passed on the way to hospital. Postmortem was conducted where it established that the cause of death was due to excessive loss of blood from deep cut injury to the left arm”.

5. In mitigation Learned Counsel for Matea stated that Matea was first time offender, which fact was confirmed by prosecution. That he regretted the act he committed and that it was not intentional but that it arose out of provocation. Further that Matea has eight children with his first wife and two children with his deceased wife. That all those children were minors and depended on him.

6. From the facts narrated above it is clear that the injury to Matea’s deceased’s wife was an unintended consequence of his anger after finding another man in his bedroom with his deceased’s wife. It is also important to note that the other man was armed with a rungu (club) and it is possible that Matea apprehended danger when he drew his sword. The court takes into account that a consequence of Matea’s decision to draw his sword resulted in the death of his wife. The sentence of manslaughter should reflect the seriousness with which the legislature viewed it when it fixed the maximum sentence of manslaughter to life imprisonment see Section 205 of the Penal Code.

7. This court however considers that Matea pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter and that he was remorseful. In the case JOHN ELIPA KALABUS-V-STATE 1988 PNGLR 193 of Papua New Guinea the court had this to say:

“Remorse and contrition are factors weighed in the matter of sentence in favour of accused person, particularly if they are manifested in plea of guilty”.

8. The other consideration this court has in mind is that Matea has ten children who depend on him. Matea has been in custody since July 2015 to date.

9. As a consequence of the above this court find that the period Matea has been in custody, close to two years is sufficient punishment. The court sentences Matea Manyaas to the period already served. Matea Manyaas shall be set free from custody unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

Dated and Delivered at Nanyuki this 30th May 2017

MARY KASANGO

JUDGE

Coram

Before Justice Mary Kasango

Court Assistant: Njue/Maria Stella

Accused : Matea Manyaas

For state: Mr. Tanui

Language: Maasai/English Interpreter: Maria Stella

COURT

Ruling delivered in open court

MARY KASANGO

JUDGE

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

JOHN ELIPA KALABUS-V-STATE 1988 PNGLR 193 (Papua New Guinea)

Case cited

Penal Code (Kenya) Section 202

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code (Kenya) Section 205

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.