https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7187

Republic v Otieno & another (Criminal Case 61 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 7187 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7187 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Case 61 of 2023 DR Kavedza, J May 26, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Vincent Otieno Otieno 1st Accused Joshua Owino Oduor 2nd Accused Judgment 1.The 1st and 2nd accused were jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code, cap 63, laws of Kenya. The particulars are that on 26th July 2020 at Kibera Soweto area within Kilimani Sub-County in Nairobi County murdered Kennedy Otieno Olola. 2.However, following successful plea negotiations with the state, the 2nd accused pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter and signed a plea agreement on 22nd May 2025. The 2nd accused was therefore charged with the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 205 of the Penal Code cap 63 Laws of Kenya. 3.The brief facts, as outlined in the plea agreement, are as follows. On 26th July 2020 at about 8.00 p.m., the 1st and 2nd accused persons, while walking along Sara Ngombe Soweto Road, were allegedly harassing members of the public by shouting and verbally abusing them. They entered a kiosk belonging to Victor Ogolla where they found his son, Stanley, whom the 2nd accused allegedly slapped. Despite Victor’s pleas, the accused persons continued their aggressive conduct and began harassing a customer, Stephen Ouko, who had entered the kiosk. Stephen subsequently left the premises, followed shortly thereafter by the accused persons. 4.A few minutes later, the accused persons encountered Stephen outside the deceased’s house and allegedly assaulted him. Upon hearing the commotion, the deceased emerged from his house in an attempt to rescue Stephen. The prosecution alleges that the 1st accused struck the deceased on the knee while the 2nd accused jumped on him, causing him to fall. A neighbour, Jack Otieno, attempted to intervene but was allegedly threatened by the 2nd accused. 5.The incident attracted a crowd, including the deceased’s wife, Linnet Achieng, who found the deceased lying unconscious on the ground. The deceased was rushed to Vipower Medical Centre by a neighbour, Roba, but was pronounced dead on arrival. Members of the public apprehended the accused persons and escorted them to Sarang’ombe Police Post, where they were rearrested and placed in custody. 6.A post-mortem examination conducted on 27th July 2020 by Dr Ndegwa established the cause of death as head injury due to blunt force trauma. Investigations were conducted by IP Anne Chepcheng, exhibits were recovered and forwarded for forensic analysis, though no blood traces were detected. The 2nd accused was later examined and found fit to plead. 7.Upon reading the facts to the accused and after confirming that the plea-bargaining process was voluntary, that the 2nd accused's constitutional rights had not been violated during the negotiation process, and further that he was not coerced, the court accepted the plea agreement and convicted the accused accordingly. 8.In mitigation, Ms Omwega, learned counsel for the 2nd accused, submitted that the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offence, thereby saving judicial time. Counsel stated that the accused is a first offender, remorseful, and had apologised to the deceased’s family. It was further submitted that the community was ready to receive him back and the court was urged to consider a favourable, preferably non-custodial, sentence. Counsel also prayed that the period already spent in custody be taken into account. 9.In response, Ms Maina, learned prosecution counsel, acknowledged that the 2nd accused was a first offender and had entered into a plea agreement, thereby saving the court’s time. However, prosecution counsel submitted that the offence was committed without provocation and that the deceased was unarmed and had merely attempted to rescue another victim from assault. The prosecution urged the court to impose a deterrent custodial sentence, noting that the accused appeared to minimise his role in the offence and was therefore not genuinely remorseful. Prosecution Counsel further submitted that the deceased, aged 31 years, was a family man survived by two school-going children, and that his death had caused significant financial hardship to his widow. The prosecution also urged the court to consider counselling for substance abuse, which the accused attributed to the commission of the offence. 10.The court received a victim impact statement from the deceased’s wife, Linet Achieng’, who stated that the deceased was the sole breadwinner and that the family continues to suffer following his death. She informed the court that the 2nd accused had written letters seeking forgiveness through remand authorities and that the family wished to be heard. She further stated that she had been compelled to seek assistance in caring for her children. 11.The court also called for a probation report which has been duly considered. 12.Having considered the plea agreement, the circumstances surrounding the offence, the probation report, and the impact on the victim’s family and the community, it is clear that this was a grave and senseless act of violence. The 2nd accused, while showing some remorse through his plea, acted with extreme aggression, causing the death. His actions were not only criminal but deeply traumatising to the victim’s family. 13.The penal section for the offence of manslaughter is contained in section 205 of the Penal Code, which provides: -Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. 14.The Court of Appeal in Thomas Mwambu Wenyi v Republic (2017) eKLR cited the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Alistar Anthony Pereira v State of Mahareshtra at paragraphs 70-71, where the court held as follows on sentencing:“Sentencing is an important task in the matter of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straight jacket formula for sentencing an accused person on proof of crime. the courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstance of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime nature of the offence and all other attendance circumstances. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence, As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the offender. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including Social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence" 15.The evidence on record demonstrates that the 2nd accused violently assaulted the deceased, inflicting injuries that ultimately caused his death. 16.The court has considered the mitigating factors advanced on behalf of the 2nd accused, including that he pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, and is a first offender. The court also notes the submissions regarding his struggle with alcohol and substance abuse. Rehabilitation remains an important consideration in addressing the underlying factors that contributed to the commission of the offence and in reducing the likelihood of reoffending. 17.The 2nd accused expressed remorse and apologised to the deceased’s widow. Although such efforts cannot restore the life lost, they demonstrate a measure of accountability and willingness by the accused and his family to make amends. 18.Nonetheless, the consequences of the offence are grave. The deceased was a young family man and the sole provider for his wife and children. His death has occasioned considerable hardship to his family, as reflected in the victim impact statement. 19.The court must therefore balance the mitigating factors, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and reconciliation initiatives against the aggravating circumstances of the offence, particularly the violent nature of the attack and the irreversible loss of life. The sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, accountability, deterrence, and the prospects of rehabilitation. 20.In the circumstances, I sentence Joshua Owino Oduor to serve fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The sentence shall run from 26th July 2020, the date of his arrest pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Orders accordingly. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Omwega for the 2nd accusedMs. Timoi for the ProsecutionKarimi Court Assistant.