https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11519

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E008 OF 2025** **REPUBLIC……………………………….……………PROSECUTION** **VERSUS** **AMOS KIPNGETICH MUTAI…………………..……ACCUSED** **JUDGEMENT** 1. The Subject, Amos Kipngetich Mutai 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 were that on 5th day of April, 2025 at around 2100hours at Salaik village in Mugango location within Bomet County, unlawfully caused the death of **ARON KIPKEMOI CHERUIYOT.** 2. The Subject took plea on 29th April, 2025 and pleaded not guilty to the offence. 3. A Plea-Bargaining Agreement dated 17th September, 2025 was filed in court and it indicated that the Subject had agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter. 4. On 17th November, 2025 this court accepted the Plea Agreement after interviewing the Subject and satisfying itself that he executed the Plea Agreement voluntarily. 5. On the same day (17th November, 2025), the Subject took plea for the offence of manslaughter. The charge and every element thereof was read and explained to him in the Kiswahili language which he understood and he pleaded guilty. The court entered a plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter. 6. The facts as read by the Prosecutor and captured in the Plea Agreement are as follows:- **“On the 5th day of April 2025, the Suspect namely Amos Kipngetich Mutai and his friend Emmanuel Kibet Ngetich were spotted fighting by Aron Kipkemoi now deceased at the main entrance to his bakery.** **The deceased intervened and cautioned the two from fighting especially around his bakery. He finally managed to separate the two boys and resumed to his duties at the bakery. Emmanuel Kibet Ngetich proceeded to his home but Amos Kipngetich Mutai refused to leave and later on followed the deceased to the bakery.** **Amos Kipngetich Mutai while in the bakery got armed with a metallic handle kitchen knife that was inside the bakery and stabbed the deceased on the chest who fell down. The Suspect ran away to his home while the deceased was rushed to Tenwek Mission Hospital. He passed on while receiving treatment and his body was moved to Tenwek Hospital Mortuary”.** 1. The Subject accepted the facts as true and the court convicted him on his own guilty plea for the lesser offence of manslaughter contrary to **section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code.** **Pre-Sentence Report** 1. The Pre-Sentence report indicates that the deceased had a tendency of bullying the Subject on several occasions. On the material day, the Subject stated that the deceased assaulted him twice both within the premise(where the deceased bakes kangumu) That the Subject coupled with previous assaults and bullying, acted out of anger and grabbed a vegetable knife that was used for cutting kangumu and stabbed the deceased on the chest. The report stated that the Subject was repentant and regretted the offence as he had no intention of killing the deceased. He prayed for non-custodial sentence so as to continue with his education. The report further stated that the Subject is known as a student within the community. **VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT** 1. The report stated that the Victim’s family are still reeling with the pain of losing a loved one a young man who had a promising future. They are opposed to a non-custodial sentence as it would reopen their wounds and undermine their sense of justice. **Subject’s Mitigation** 1. The probation officer recommended that the subject be commite4d to Shikusa Institution for 3 years. 2. Sentencing serves multiple purposes as enumerated in the **Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023** which outline the objectives of sentencing at paragraph 1.3.1 as follows:- **Sentences are imposed to meet the following objectives. There will be instances in which the objectives may conflict with each other- in so far as possible, sentences imposed should be geared towards meeting the objectives in totality.** 1. **Retribution.** 2. **Deterrence.** 3. **Rehabilitation.** 4. **Restorative justice.** 5. **Community Protection.** 6. **Denunciation.** 7. **Reconciliation.** 8. **Reintegration.** 9. 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.** 1. The **Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023** at paragraph 2.3.15lists the factors that a court should consider when deciding to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence. They are as follows:- 2. **Gravity of the offence: In the absence of aggravating circumstances, or any other circumstance that renders a non-custodial sentence unsuitable, a sentence of imprisonment should be avoided with respect to sentences that have been adjudged as deserving less than three (3) years.** 3. **Criminal history of the offender: Taking into account the seriousness of the offence, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentences except where the seriousness of the offence crosses the custody threshold (where the offence is so serious that neither a fine or community sentence can be justified).** 4. **Children in conflict with the law: Generally speaking, non-custodial orders should be imposed as a matter of course in the case of children in conflict with the law. The exception to this is in circumstances where in light of the seriousness of the offence, coupled with other factors, the court is satisfied that a custodial order is the most appropriate and would be in the child’s best interest. Custodial orders should only be meted out as a measure of last resort and in accordance with the guidance provided under section 239 of the Children’s Act, 2022. The court shall also issue post-committal supervision orders upon completion of the committal orders or the attainment of the age of majority where it is appropriate to so do in light of the nature of the offence and circumstances of the offender.** 5. **Conduct of the offender: Non-custodial sentences are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.** 6. **Protection of the community: Where there is evidence that the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community, a custodial sentence may be more appropriate. The probation officer’s reports should inform the court of the risk posed by the offender to the community in order to inform sentencing.** 7. **Offender’s responsibility to third parties: Where committing an offender to a custodial sentence is likely to unduly prejudice others, particularly vulnerable persons who depend on them, a court should consider if, in light of the nature and seriousness of the offence, the objectives of sentencing can be met with a non-custodial sentence. The court should enquire into the offender’s personal circumstances and, where appropriate, seek the assistance of a pre-sentence report.** 8. . This is also in compliance with Article 159 of the Constitution in as far as alternative dispute resolution is concerned and timely resolution of matters. 1. I have considered the circumstances of the case, the pre-sentence report and I have also considered the Subject’s mitigation that he was remorseful and regretted the event. 2. In the end, the Subject, Amos Kipngetich Mutai is committed to Shikusa Borstal Institution for a period of 3 years. **Judgement delivered, dated and signed this 28th day of July, 2026.** **........................** **J.K.NG’ARNG’AR** **JUDGE** **Judgement delivered in the presence of:** **Mwangangi for the State** **Chirchir for the Subject** **Subject in person**