https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9085

Republic v Ochieng alias Omosh (Criminal Case E007 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9085 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9085 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Siaya Criminal Case E007 of 2024 DK Kemei, J June 29, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Edwin Omondi Ochieng alias Omosh Accused Sentence 1.The accused herein Edwin Omondi Ochieng Alias Omosh had been charged with an offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on 3rd day of January, 2024 at an unknown time in Dombajenda village in Central Sakwa Location in Bondo Sub County within Siaya County murdered one Maurene Achieng Otieno. Pursuant to a plea agreement dated 22nd May 2026, the charge of murder was reduced to that of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code with the particulars being that on the 3rd January 2024 at an unknown time at Domajenda village, Central Sakwa Location in Bondo Sub County within Siaya County, he killed one Maurene Achieng Otieno. The accused pleaded guilty to the said charge and was thus convicted accordingly. 2.Sentencing hearing commenced on 15th June, 2026. Mr. Oduol for the accused submitted interalia: that the accused is a first offender and is remorseful and seeks for pardon from the family of the deceased and the society; that the court to consider the period spent in custody pending the trial; that a non-custodial sentence be imposed; that the sentiments of the victim’s husband has been captured; that the court should balance the scales for both sides in the matter as the accused has apologized for the wrong committed; that the accused has decided to save the court’s judicial time; that the court should not resort to the principle of an eye for an eye and that there is need for rehabilitation and reform. 3.Mr Soita for the prosecution submitted inter alia; that the court to consider the entire circumstances and the exhibits; that the accused has reduced the time in the trial; that the court be guided by the sentiments in the pre-sentence report; that a custodial sentence be imposed. 4.This court called for a pre-sentence report by the Probation department. The same was duly availed and it is dated 12/6/2026. The summary of the reports is inter alia; that the deceased had been a girlfriend to the accused and that he had secured her employment at a certain bar; that the accused was not happy about the deceased entertaining other men in his presence; that the accused maintains that he had no intention of killing the deceased and that he had not taken her to hospital but hid the body in a goldmine due to fear; that the local administration knows him as a drunkard and a violent person while under influence of alcohol and that it was suspected that he had relocated from Nairobi to the village to hide as it was suspected that he might have committed offences in Nairobi.; that the husband and children of the deceased are devastated over the demise of the deceased and that they seek justice; that the local administration vouches for a deterrent sentence; the probation officer has recommended that the circumstances do not merit a no-custodial sentence, 5.I have given due consideration to the oral submissions and the pre-sentence reports. It is noted that the accused has been convicted for manslaughter under section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. The punishment for manslaughter is a sentence of life imprisonment. Looking at the circumstances of the case, iam of the view that the accused is a first offenders and thus he does not merit a sentence of life imprisonment. The circumstances of the offence herein are rather tragic in that the accused was annoyed at the conduct of the deceased in entertaining other men in his presence and waited for her to leave her workplace where she served as a barmaid and then escorted her to his house. The accused contends that the deceased was his girlfriend. It seems the matter got out of hand upon arrival at the house as the accused viciously attacked her and later dumped the body in a nearby goldmine pit and covered the top with iron sheets to conceal the incident. It took quite a while before the deceased’s employer started looking for her and lodging a report of missing person and that it was only upon the arrest of the accused that he cooperated and led the police to the scene where the partly decomposed body of the deceased was retrieved from the goldmine pit .It also transpired that the accused upon killing the deceased loaded the body onto a wheelbarrow and then dumped it into a goldmine pit. Even though the accused had been incensed by the unfaithfulness of his girlfriend, it was not right for him to seek to eliminate her. It is instructive that the accused had not even married her and thus his reaction went overboard. He should simply have let her go or find an amicable solution to the matter but not to end her life. The accused therefore took the law into his hands. Had he opted to raise the matter to close friends or sever the relationship, the deceased could be alive today. 6.It is further noted that the deceased who was aged around 39 years was subjected to severe beatings on her body at the hands of the accused herein. The pathologist Dr Bruno Okal noted several injuries such as cut wounds on the forehead and right ear. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure secondary to hemorrhagic shock due to deep cut wound on the skull. He produced the autopsy report dated 16/1/2024 as exhibit four. It is clear that the accused brutalized the deceased and left no doubt that he wanted her dead. I find that the said injuries could not give the deceased a chance to survive. It transpired from the pre-sentence report herein that the deceased had been married to someone else with whom she had separated and left the children with the estranged husband and who confirmed that the deceased used to visit her children occasionally and provide for them. I find that the deceased did not deserve to die in the manner that she did. The fact that the accused had secured her the job of a barmaid did not give him the right to purport to own her and take her as his property yet the purported relationship had not even been cemented and enhanced into a marriage. The death was thus unwarranted in the circumstances. 7.As regards the sentence to be imposed, the Court of Appeal in the case of Charo Ngumbao Gugudu Vs. R [2011] eKLR held as follows:“Further, the law is that sentence imposed on an accused person must be commensurate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender and that it is not proper exercise for the court to fail to look at the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety before settling for any given sentence. See Ambani Vs. R [1990] KLR” 8.According to the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines (2023), sentencing of offenders should take into account the following objectives:a)Retribution - To punish the offender for their criminal conduct in a just manner.b)Deterrence - To deter the offender from committing a similar or any other offence in future as well as to discourage the public from committing offences.c)Rehabilitation - To enable the offender to reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person.d)Restorative justice - To address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages sustained by the victim or the community and to promote a sense of responsibility through the offender’s contribution towards meeting those needs.e)Community protection - To protect the community by removing the offender from the community thus avoiding the further perpetuation of the offender’s criminal acts.f)Denunciation - To clearly communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.g)Reconciliation - To mend the relationship between the offender, the victim and the community.h)Reintegration - To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society. 9.Looking at the circumstances of the offence as well as the pre-sentence report and the mitigation of the defence and prosecution, it is clear that the family of the accused have not made any attempt at reconciliation with the family of the deceased. The pre-bail report earlier filed indicated that the villagers were still hostile to the accused and it showed that integration would be impossible. Indeed, the accused’s residence was torched by the irate villagers. It has also transpired that the accused herein is a person of ungovernable anger going by his conduct in viciously attacking the deceased and later loading the body onto a wheelbarrow and dumping it into a goldmine pit and covering the top with iron sheets. This was rather brutal and unwarranted act on the part of the accused. The accused could not have suffered anything if he had released her to go and lead her own life but not to kill her. It is instructive that the deceased’s former husband separated with her and did not harass her in any way and allowed her to be visiting the children once in a while. Iam of the considered view that the accused herein require a comprehensive custodial rehabilitation in order to enable him to undergo the requisite rehabilitation so as to work on his anger related issues before being released back to the society. 10.It is noted that the accused herein did not manage to post bail and thus has been in custody throughout the trial right from the date of his arrest (11/1/2024) and therefore the said period must be taken into account pursuant to the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure and that the sentence to be imposed should commence from the date of arrest. The defence has urged this court to consider the fact that the accused has saved judicial time by pleading guilty to a substituted charge of manslaughter. Whereas this might be so, it is noted that the prosecution has had to marshal 11 witnesses and was about to wrap up its case after a period of more than two years. Iam of the view that a sentence of ten (10) years’ imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances and which shall commence from the date of arrest namely 11/1/2024. 11.In view of the foregoing observations, i order the accused herein Edwin Omondi Ochieng Alias Omosh to serve a sentence of ten (10) years’’ imprisonment which shall commence from the date of arrest, namely 11/1/2024. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA, THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of:Edwin Omondi Ochieng alias Omosh...............Accused.Mr Oduol....................................................for AccusedM/s Nakholi..........................................for ProsecutionM/s Maurine........................................Court Assistant.