[2025] KEMC 147 (KLR)
The court determined that, despite the accused being a first offender and expressing remorse, the interests of justice and community safety required a custodial sentence. The court considered the victim's and family's plea for incarceration, the accused's history of nuisance and drug abuse, and the lack of support...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEMC 147 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: John Njau Mukanga
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Court Station
- Nakuru Law Courts
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E350 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentence
- Outcome
- Accused sentenced to three years imprisonment for threatening to kill and two months imprisonment for creating disturbance, sentences to run concurrently.
- Judges
- PA Ndege
- Legal Topics
- Threats to Kill, Breach of Peace, Sentencing Guidelines, Mitigation, Custodial Sentences
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
John Njau Mukanga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should receive a custodial or non-custodial sentence for threatening to kill and creating disturbance.
- 2 What sentence is proportionate to the offences committed, considering the interests of the accused, victim, and community.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that, despite the accused being a first offender and expressing remorse, the interests of justice and community safety required a custodial sentence. The court considered the victim's and family's plea for incarceration, the accused's history of nuisance and drug abuse, and the lack of support for a non-custodial sentence. Applying the Sentencing Policy Guidelines and relevant precedent, the court found that a three-year imprisonment for threatening to kill and two months for creating disturbance, to run concurrently, was proportionate and necessary to deter future offending and protect the community.
Court Disposition
Accused sentenced to three years imprisonment for threatening to kill and two months imprisonment for creating disturbance, sentences to run concurrently.
Orders
- Accused sentenced to three years imprisonment for threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the Penal Code.
- Accused sentenced to two months imprisonment for creating disturbance contrary to section 95(1)(b) of the Penal Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Mukanga (Criminal Case E350 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 147 (KLR) (20 May 2025) (Sentence)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEMC 147 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Nakuru Law Courts
Criminal Case E350 of 2025
PA Ndege, J
May 20, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
John Njau Mukanga
Accused
Sentence
1. The accused person herein, John Njau Mukanga, has been convicted upon own guilty plea to both of the two counts facing him. Count I is for the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that the accused on 11/02/2025 at Giachonge Village Githioro Location Nakuru North Sub county within Nakuru County without lawful excuse uttered the words “Nitakuua wewe” while armed with kitchen knife threatening to kill Jane Wambui Kamau Kiarie.
2. Count II is for the offence of creating disturbance in a manner likely to cause breach of peace contrary to section 95(1) (b) of the Penal Code. The particulars are that the accused on 11/02/2025 at Giachonge Village Githioro Location Nakuru North Sub county within Nakuru County created disturbance in a manner likely to cause breach of peace by threatening to kill Jane Wambui Kamau Kiarie while pointing a rungu.
3. In his mitigation, the accused person stated that he was a first offender. The pre-sentence report tendered before court by the probation officer stated that the accused person was remorseful for the offences and pleaded for leniency in sentencing. On the flip-side, the victim who is the mother of the accused together with her family urged the court to consider a custodial sentence for the accused stating that his incarceration has brought peace to the family. Additionally, they fear that their kin would reoffend due to environmental stressors and social pressures given that where the accused hails from there’s heavy use of drugs which in fact led him to drop out of school while he was in class six while still twelve years of age. They thus urged the court to grant strong deterrence measures. In the same vein, the local administration noted that they had received numerous complaints from the family and community accusing him of being a nuisance to society since he would chase school children on the road and hurl insults to road users.
4. The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines underpins principles such as proportionality of the sentence to the offending behavior, equality, accountability, transparency and inclusiveness of the offender and victim in the sentencing process. In James Munyua Ndugi v Republic (Criminal Revision E225 of 2023), Nzioka J. in declining to review the sentence for the applicant who had been convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment for the offence of threatening to kill where without lawful excuse he threatened to cut Simon Kamau with a panga, noted that the applicant is not a first offender, he abuses drugs and has been a nuisance. Additionally, the learned judge noted that the community and family do not support a non-custodial order.
5. In count II regarding creating disturbance likely to cause a breach of peace, a sentence of 2 months imprisonment is enough punishment to balance the interests of the accused person and those of his family and community at large. In light of the above, I sentence the accused person to three years imprisonment for the offence of threatening to kill c/s 223(1) and two months for the offence of creating disturbance c/s 95(1)(b), both of the Penal Code as charged herein. Sentences to run concurrently.14 days Right of Appeal explained
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU IN OPEN COURT THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2025ALOYCE-PETER-NDEGESENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTATEIn the presence of;Court interpreter- JanetProsecution counsel- MachariaAccused- PresentVictim- N/A