https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10627

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E008 OF 2025** **REPUBLIC ……………………….…….……………………PROSECUTION** **VERSUS** **ROBIN OLOO OMONDI……………………………………………ACCUSED** **RULING ON SENTENCE** 1. The accused herein **Robin Oloo Omondi** has 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 4th day of January 2025 at Mukwayo village, Ndenga Sub location in Ugenya Sub County within Siaya County, killed one Peter Wanyama alias Tutaa*.* However, following the plea agreement entered into by the parties herein dated 9th June, 2026, *the* accused pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code and was subsequently convicted therefor. 2. The sentencing hearing proceeded on 10/7/2026. Mr Oduol for the defence submitted inter alia; that the accused is a first offender; that the accused has acknowledged the matter and takes responsibility for his action; that he is remorseful and prays for forgiveness; that the sentiments of the family of the deceased and the community have been noted; that the court is the one to decide the nature of the sentence to be imposed; that the court is urged to consider a lenient sentence as the accused has left behind a young family as he was the breadwinner; that the accused has pleaded guilty and thus saved judicial time. 3. Mr Soita for the prosecution submitted inter alia; that the court to consider the contents of the pre-sentence report; that the accused has entered into a plea bargain with the state and that the court is urged to balance the scales of justice. 4. This court called for a pre-sentence report by the Probation department. The same is dated 9/7/2026 and indicates inter alia; that the accused is an alcoholic who enjoys minimal community social support as he has a history of violent and anti-social behaviour and that he has been involved in criminal incidents in the past which did not reach the courts; that the offenders family have reservations regarding his suitability for non- custodial sentence as they feel that a structured custodial rehabilitation would provide him with an opportunity to reflect on his conduct before any consideration for reintegration back to the society; that the family of the victim are deeply affected and that they oppose any release on non-custodial sentence bearing in mind that no reconciliation efforts have been initiated by the offender’s family; that the community and the local administration are in favour of a custodial sentence; that the probation officer recommends a custodial sentence. 5. I have given due consideration to the mitigation submissions of learned counsels and the pre-sentence report. Under Section 205 of the Penal Code, the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. However, the maximum sentence is usually reserved for the worst form of offenders. Looking at the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the accused who is a first offender does not merit a sentence of life imprisonment. It is noted that the offence was committed as a result of the accused herein attacking the deceased over the failure of the deceased to release to the accused his share of wages over some work that they had jointly carried out and that the deceased succumbed due to the fatal injuries. The pre-sentence report indicates that the deceased was the breadwinner for his family and that he was a neighbour of the accused and that the death has caused a lot of suffering to his family. That the circumstances of the offence is that the accused confronted the deceased at a changaa den over the issue of his wages and went ahead to attack the deceased inflicting on him severe injuries which led to his death. Hence, the deceased met his tragic death thanks to the accused who used excessive force as he had been a person with ungovernable anger. It is trite that all homicides are unlawful unless authorized by law. Had the accused used other forms of dispute resolution such as engaging the clan elder or other lawful authorizes in a bid to recover his money, the deceased could be alive today. The deceased was the accused’s neighbour and thus they could still work things out as neighbours and eventually the issue could have been resolved. The autopsy report indicated that the deceased suffered septic shock secondary to raptured bowel secondary to blunt trauma to the abdomen secondary to assault which did not give him a chance to survive. 6. The circumstances leading to the death of the deceased are tragic. The deceased had gone to enjoy a drink at a changaa den when he met the accused herein and that after they had had their drinks, the accused demanded for his share of wages over some work the two had done together only for the accused to viciously attack him and that the injuries later resulted to his death. The pathologist, Dr. Victor Ochieng noted that there were injuries on the frontal area of the head. That there was massive hematoma and hemothorax with a collapsed lung. That he formed the opinion that the cause of death was septic shock secondary to raptured bowel secondary to blunt trauma to the abdomen as a result of assault. He produced the autopsy report as Exhibit One. It is trite that all homicides are unlawful and hence the deceased did not deserve to die even if he had owed the accused some money. It seems that the accused had been incensed after he learnt that the deceased had received the wages over some work they had carried out together and thus viciously attacked him and inflicted on him serious injuries which led to his death. The accused ought to have used other avenues of redress such as engaging the clan elder or other lawful authorities over the debt owed by the deceased instead of taking the law into his hands and killing the deceased. Had he used lawful channels to pursue his debt, the deceased would be alive today. I find that the deceased did not deserve to die in the manner that he did. 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. 1. Looking at the circumstances of the offence as well as the pre-sentence report and the mitigation of the accused herein, it is noted that the accused herein killed the deceased over some monies that had been sent to the deceased and which they were to share. However, the accused’s action of eliminating the deceased without the due process was unlawful. The accused should have used lawful channels by engaging the local authority regarding the alleged debt owed by the deceased but not to take the law into his hands. As noted above, the accused appeared to be a person with ungovernable anger and used excessive force. This was unwarranted. The severe injuries inflicted on the deceased as per the autopsy report left no doubt that the accused intended them to cause death and no wonder that the deceased died after a short while even with medical interventions. It is evident that the accused is a person of ungovernable anger and that he requires to undergo comprehensive custodial rehabilitation before being allowed to rejoin the community. Being guided by the contents of the pre-sentence report and the fact that the accused has entered a plea of guilty to a substituted charge of manslaughter, iam of the view that a sentence of ten (10) years’ imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances. 10. It is noted that the accused did not manage to post bail and had been in remand custody until the time of his conviction and hence the application of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply so as to ensure that the period spent in custody is taken into consideration. It is noted that the accused was arrested on 9/1/2025 and hence the sentence shall therefore run from the said date. 11. In the result, i order the accused herein **Robin Oloo Omondi** to serve a sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment which shall commence from the date of arrest namely 9th January, 2025. Orders accordingly. **Dated and delivered at Siaya, this 17TH day of. JULY 2026.** **HON. D. KEMEI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **ROBIN OLOO OMONDI..........................................Accused** **ODUOL....................................................................for Accused** **SOITA........................................................................for Prosecution** **MAUREENE...........................................................Court Assistant.**