https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6770

Republic v Ochango (Criminal Case 15 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 6770 (KLR) (20 May 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6770 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Case 15 of 2023 DR Kavedza, J May 20, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and John Ochango Convict Sentence 1.The accused, John Ochango, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. On 9th April 2026, this Court found the accused guilty of murder and duly convicted him. The Court subsequently directed the probation officer to file a pre-sentence report. 2.The pre-sentence report discloses that the convict, John Ochango, was the deceased’s supervisor and allegedly withheld her wages as a means of exercising control over her. He was engaged in a romantic relationship with the deceased and they cohabited in Kawangware for a period of three months. 3.On the material day, after an interaction with the deceased in the morning, the convict returned home in the evening to find that she had vacated the premises, taking some of his personal belongings. He traced her to her aunt’s residence, where an altercation escalated into a physical confrontation. The convict maintains that during the struggle the deceased accidentally fell onto a knife she had been using to cut vegetables. She was rushed to hospital but succumbed to her injuries. He attempted to flee the scene but was apprehended by members of the public. 4.The report further reveals that the relationship was characterised by frequent disputes, alleged physical abuse and controlling behaviour, particularly in financial matters. Community members reported prior threats by the convict to kill the deceased after she moved out. His pursuit of her to her aunt’s home demonstrates intentional conduct. The convict attributes the incident to alcohol consumption, steadfastly maintains that the death was accidental, and denies inflicting any stabbing wounds. He displays limited remorse and accountability. The probation officer noted his prolonged alcohol abuse as a significant factor impairing his judgment and escalating interpersonal conflicts. No formal reconciliation has taken place between the two families, despite the convict’s assertions to the contrary. 5.The community remains hostile towards the convict and strongly opposes a non-custodial sentence. In light of the foregoing aggravating factors, including the pattern of coercive and violent behaviour and lack of genuine remorse, the convict does not merit a non-custodial sentence. While the deceased’s family has urged the imposition of a life sentence, recent jurisprudence indicates a more measured approach to sentencing in murder cases. 6.In the case of Julius Kitsao Manyeso v Republic – Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2021, the Court of Appeal expressed itself as follows;“We note that the decisions of this Court relied on by the Appellant, namely Evans Wanjala Wanyonyi v Rep [2019] eKLR and Jared Koita Injiri v Republic Kisumu Crim. App No 93 of 2014 were decided before the Supreme Court clarified the application of its decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2021] eKLR and limited its finding of unconstitutionality of mandatory sentences to mandatory death sentences imposed on murder convicts pursuant to section 204 of the Penal Code. This fact notwithstanding, we are of the view that the reasoning in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR equally applies to the imposition of a mandatory indeterminate life sentence, namely that such a sentence denies a convict facing life imprisonment the opportunity to be heard in mitigation when those facing lesser sentences are allowed to be heard in mitigation. This is an unjustifiable discrimination, unfair and repugnant to the principle of equality before the law under Article 27 of the Constitution. In addition, an indeterminate life sentence is in our view also inhumane treatment and violates the right to dignity under Article 28, and we are in this respect persuaded by the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in Vinter and others v The United Kingdom (Application nos.66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10) [2016] III ECHR 317 (9 July 2013) that an indeterminate life sentence without any prospect of release or a possibility of review is degrading and inhuman punishment, and that it is now a principle in international law that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if that rehabilitation is achieved.” 7.The upshot of the foregoing is that the higher Courts have now released Courts from the yoke of being confined to imposing mandatory minimum and maximum sentences without discretion. 8.I therefore sentence the convict, John Ochango to thirty (30) years imprisonment. The convict was arrested on 24th October 2021, and was released on bond 23rd January 2024. He therefore spent two (2) years and three (3) months in pre-trial custody. The sentence shall be computed less the days the convict spent in pre-trial custody pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Timoi for the ProsecutionConvict PresentToni Court Assistant.