https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10983

Republic v Onduso (Criminal Case E009 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 10983 (KLR) (20 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10983 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyahururu Criminal Case E009 of 2023 LN Mutende, J July 20, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Felix Kerongo Onduso Accused Sentence 1.Felix Kerongo Onduso was found guilty and convicted for the offence of Murder of Bernard Waweru Kamawira. Previous records in respect of the offender were not availed from the Forensic Identification Bureau therefore the court is supposed to presume that Felix Kerongo Onduso is a first offender. 2.There is a pre-sentence report filed following inquiries conducted by the probation services which indicate that the offender who to date denies culpability has previously been arraigned in Nyahururu Criminal case No. 735 of 2020 for the offence of House breaking and Stealing and he was granted a cash bail of Kshs 10,000/- then he absconded. Consequently a warrant of arrest was issued against him. 3.The offender’s family stated that the offender rarely stays at home and was disowned by his father following allegations in the information. The family is yet to come to terms with what happened due to the magnitude of the offence. 4.Secondary victims have been affected emotionally and psychologically. One of the children requires counselling. In a written victim impact statement, Doris Kamawera, a sister to the deceased, gives an account of the family having lost a patriarch who was a source of strength and unity. That following the profound trauma suffered healing is extremely difficult. That the primary victim was visionary hence they lost a future legacy and many, the family and community were deprived of assistance economically and generational guidance. 5.The community through the local administrator, Kwa Wanjiku, described the primary victim as an environmentalist who was resourceful to his family and the community at large. The offender is viewed negatively. That he has been problematic since primary school. He worked for the deceased and they disagreed on payment. That he is a threat to the community. 6.It was hence the recommendation of the probation officer that the offender is not suitable for community-based rehabilitation. 7.In mitigation through learned defence counsel, Mr. Maina Kairu, he submits that he is remorseful. That at the time of arrest he was 21 years old, a young man who deserves a second chance in life. He prayed for leniency and seeks a rehabilitative sentence which will serve some purpose. 8.Learned prosecution counsel, Ms. Mumbe acknowledged the jurisprudence in Francis Karioko & Another [2017] eKLR where the Supreme Court found death sentence unconstitutional, granting the court discretion to impose a sentence other than death. She called upon the court to impose a death sentence. 9.The offender herein contravened Section 204 of the Penal Code which provides thus;Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death. 10.The primary objective of sentencing is generally punishing the offender to ensure the punishment is proportionate to gravity of the offence. The court should endeavor to ensure that the offender and the wider community is deterred from committing such a crime. In as much as the public should be protected from an offender, he should be rehabilitated so as to change behavior. While a sentence must emphasize public denunciation and retribution, it must not be vindictive. It must also balance the offender’s human rights in that it must be proportional to the offender’s culpability. 11.In S v ZINN [1969] (2) 537 the court called upon the sentencing court to consider various factors, the severity of the offence, the personal circumstances of the offender, whether he is capable of being rehabilitated and generally the views of the society; although the public opinion need not be fully satisfied. 12.In Muruatetu & Another Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) [2021] KESC 31 (KLR) the Supreme Court gave guidelines when it comes to sentencing that includes, the age of the offender, whether the offender is a first offender, character and record of the offender; remorsefulness of the offender, and the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender. 13.The deceased succumbed to an acute injury on the neck that was intentionally cut which was proof of a heinous and brutal attack. The loss of the deceased has impacted on his kin as it has caused profound psychological trauma having disrupted them economically and they are going through untold hardship. 14.The offender is stated to have been 21 years old at the time hence an emerging adult. He lacked interest in education, a disappointment to his parents. Without proof of conviction previously he remains a first offender and is treated as such. The offender had just bridged his adolescent stage and was now moving into adulthood. The quagmire to be addressed is whether such an individual can be rehabilitated. It is very possible for him to respond if taken through proper behavioral therapy. This therefore calls for incarceration in a correctional facility where he can benefit from educational and vocational programs that can shape his future. 15.Taking into consideration caselaw, factors and circumstances in which the offence was committed, I sentence the offender to serve Twenty-Three (23) years Imprisonment which will be effective from the date of arraignment, the 15th day of May, 2023 DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NYAHURURU THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026HON L. MUTENDEJUDGE