https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10229

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E002 OF 2023** **REPUBLIC………………………………….……..PROSECUTION** **V E R S U S** **JOSHUA KIMUTAI NGENO …………….……..……ACCUSED** **JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE** 1. The Accused, **JOSHUA KIMUTAI NGENO** 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 **8th day of January, 2023** at Kapsigowet Village in Kapset Location, Kimulot Division of Konoin Sub-County in Bomet County, he murdered **HARUN KIPKIRUI NGETICH**. 2. The Accused took plea on **22nd February, 2023** and pleaded not guilty. 3. A duly executed Plea Bargaining Agreement dated 15th October, 2025 was filed in Court and it indicated that the Accused had agreed to plead guilty to the offence of Manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. 4. On 20th April, 2026, this Court accepted the Plea Agreement after interviewing the Accused and satisfying itself that he executed the Plea Agreement voluntarily. 5. On the same day **(20th April, 2026)**, the Accused 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 8th January, 2023 at about 1600hrs, one DOROTHY CHERONO was at her home in Kapsigowet Village. She heard screams coming from the road adjacent to her house. When she went to check she saw the Accused JOSHUA KIMUTAI NGENO struggling with the deceased HARUN KIPKIRUI NGETICH. The two are her neighbours. When she got closer she saw the deceased bleeding from the neck while the Accused was holding a knife on the deceased’s chest. When he saw Dorothy, the Accused pulled out the knife from the deceased’s chest and ran away. Dorothy went to assist the deceased and held him from the back. Blood was gushing from his belly. He became unconscious. Other villagers arrived and they assisted to take the deceased to Kapkatet Hospital where he died while receiving treatment.** **A report was made at Kimulot Police Station. Investigations were conducted and the Police were able to recover the murder weapon which was a knife from the Accused’s house. They also recovered a trouser which the Accused was wearing at the time of the incident. A post mortem was conducted and the cause of death was cardiac system compromise due to penetrating trauma which is consistent with the deceased’s injuries.** **Accused was then arrested and charged** **On 22nd February, 2023, the Accused herein was arraigned in Court with the charge of Murder, which Offence has now commuted to a charge of Manslaughter”.** 1. The Accused accepted the facts as true and the Court convicted him on his own plea of guilty for the lesser offence of **Manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.** **Pre-Sentence Report:** 1. The Report stated that the Offender was a paternal uncle to the Victim. On the material day, they went for a drink in a local alcohol den. Along the way an altercation ensued between the two. The Offender drew a knife he had and stabbed the Victim on the chest. The Victim screamed and members of the public gathered to help. The Offender then ran away. The Victim was taken to hospital but succumbed to the inflicted injuries. Later the offender was arrested and subsequently arraigned in Court. 2. The Community describes the Offender as hardworking, responsible and was actively involved in community activities prior to his arrest. They do not oppose to his plea of non-custodial sentence. **Victim Impact Statement:** 1. The Victim’s family is still grappling with the emotional pain occasioned by the loss of the Victim. The family strongly opposes the Offender being granted a non-custodial sentence, maintaining that a custodial sentence would serve the interest of justice. **Accused’s Mitigation:** 1. The Report stated that the Offender has since expressed deep remorse and profound regret over this actions. He acknowledges that he ought to have exercised restraint and withdrawn from the confrontation. He accepts full responsibility for his conduct. 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. I have considered the circumstances of the case, the Pre-Sentence Report and the Accused’s mitigation that he was remorseful and regretted the event that led to the offence. The Victim’s family and the Probation Officer Advocated for custodial sentence. 2. The **Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023** at paragraph 2.3.15 lists the factors that a court should consider when deciding to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence. They are as follows:- 3. **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.** 4. **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).** 5. **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.** 6. **Conduct of the offender: Non-custodial sentences are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.** 7. **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.** 8. **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.** 9. This is also in compliance with **Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution** in as far as **Alternative Dispute Resolution** is concerned and timely resolution of matters. 10. In the final analysis, it is my finding that this was not a suitable case for grant of a non-custodial sentence. A life was lost unnecessarily. In my view, the Accused must serve a custodial sentence. 11. In the end, the Accused, **Joshua Kimutai Ngeno** is sentenced to serve **10 years imprisonment**. The Sentence to run from the date of plea taking on **22nd February, 2023**. 12. 14 days Right of Appeal. **Judgement delivered, dated and signed this 14th day of July, 2026.** **........................................** **HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR** **JUDGE** **Judgement delivered in the presence of;** **Siele/Zachary – Court Assistants** **Ms. Koech for the State** **N/A for the Accused**