Republic v Ongera (Criminal Case E020 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10790 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Sentence)

Republic v Ongera (Criminal Case E020 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10790 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10790 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyahururu Criminal Case E020 of 2025 LN Mutende, J July 14, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Eunice Moraa Ongera Accused Sentence 1.Eunice Moraa Ongera, the Accused, was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.Particulars of the offence being that on 04/12/2025 at Ol moran Township within Laikipia West, she murdered M L alias M. At the outset she denied the allegations. However, she later opted to enter into a plea-bargaining arrangement with the State/Prosecution as per the plea bargain agreement signed on 6th March, 2026 that was adopted as an order of this court pursuant to Section 137 C and H of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, she was convicted of a lesser charge of Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. 2.Facts of the case are that on 04th December,2025 the deceased, a minor aged 12 years old wronged the Accused who picked a piece of firewood and struck him on the head which injured him. He was rushed to hospital but he succumbed to the traumatic brain injury. 3.A post-mortem examination conducted revealed that the cause of death was traumatic brain injury due to blunt force trauma. 4.To reach a suitable sentence the court called for a Pre-sentence report. The report dated 08/05/2026 captured views of the secondary victims, the community and Accused. The mother of the primary victim and her relatives claimed to have forgiven the Accused but they needed to be compensated Ksh.350,000/- as part of the expenses incurred. They wanted her to be on a non-custodial sentence so that she can make the necessary payments. 5.The community views obtained from the area chief supported community-based rehabilitation. 6.It is recommended by the probation officer that the court considers a non-custodial sentence which will help the Accused execute her parental responsibilities. 7.In pre-sentence mitigation, through learned counsel, Mr. Oburu, the accused expressed remorse calling upon the court to consider that the Accused picked a stick to discipline the victim who was fighting her son. That following her background of a broken family sometimes she fails to control her emotions and for reasons afore stated the Accused seeks to be granted a non-custodial sentence. 8.Learned prosecution counsel, Ms. Mumbe, urged the court to take into consideration mitigating factors considering that the Accused took responsibility for her actions. But, she pointed out that on aggravating factors there was loss of life. That the Accused abused trust as the victim was her neighbour and she should have protected the child. She called upon the court to impose a sentence that would be proportionate to the offence. 9.The provisions of Section 205 of the Penal Code enact that:"Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to life imprisonment." 10.The court has been called upon to consider sentencing the Accused to a non-custodial sentence. Whether or not to consider a custodial or non-custodial sentence depends on circumstances of each case. The court must consider existence of aggravating circumstances if any, and the mitigating factors as well. (See Sentencing Policy Guidelines) The sentence must be appropriate, just and effective. 11.The offence of manslaughter is serious such that a non-custodial sentence would not be appropriate, unless there exist unique circumstances that led to commission of the offence. 12.The Accused who has expressed remorse, is stated to be 32 years old, and possibly a first offender since no previous records were availed. The question of reconciliation has been emphasized although parties seem to be reading from different scripts since the victims seem to expect compensation while the defence is mum on the question of compensation. 13.The principle of proportionality must be taken into consideration and the severity of sentence should be comparable with the seriousness of the offence. In Omuse v R [2009] KLR 214, the court held that sentence imposed on an accused person must be commensurate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the proper exercise of discretion in sentencing requires the court to consider that fact and circumstances of the case in their entirety before settling for any given sentence. 14.The victim was a child. Children are vulnerable because they cannot protect themselves. The Accused took the life of the victim which was in violation of the continuity of human life. The severity of the offence must be accentuated. Other children must be protected from the Accused, anger should be managed and the best place to be done at the outset would be prison. 15.Notably, the Accused saved judicial time by entering into a plea bargain agreement. She has been in custody for Seven months, a period that I do take into consideration. For reasons given, I hereby sentence her to serve three (3) years imprisonment with effect from the date of arrest, 21st November,2025. And upon completion of the three (3) year period, she will be under probation supervision for three years. 16.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON 14TH JULY, 2026HON L. MUTENDEJUDGE