https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8082

Republic v Oyugi (Criminal Case E025 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8082 (KLR) (8 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8082 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisumu Criminal Case E025 of 2021 JM Omido, J June 8, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Sebby Roy Oyugi Accused Sentence 1.The accused person, Sebby Roy Oyugi, has been convicted by this court of the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The matter now falls for sentence. 2.Sentencing is one of the most solemn responsibilities entrusted to a court of law. It requires the court to balance the circumstances of the offence, the personal circumstances of the offender, the interests of the victim and the victim’s family and the interests of society. 3.In exercising its sentencing discretion, the court is guided by the objectives of sentencing as recognised in the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, namely retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice where appropriate, community protection and denunciation. 4.The court has considered the mitigation advanced by the accused, the presentence report dated 25th May 2026, the circumstances under which the offence was committed, the interests of the deceased’s family, the interests of society and all relevant factors disclosed by the material on record. 5.The court has taken into account that the accused is a first offender. The prosecution confirmed that no previous criminal record was traced against him. 6.The court has further considered that the accused is presently forty-eight (48) years old or thereabout and that members of his family have appealed for leniency on his behalf. The presentence report indicates that his family regrets the unfortunate events that culminated in the death of the deceased and desires that mercy be extended to him. 7.In his personal mitigation, the accused expressed appreciation for the opportunity afforded to him to address the court. He acknowledged the conviction entered against him and stated that although the probation officer’s report was unfavourable to him, he has since undergone significant personal change during the period he has spent in custody. 8.The accused informed the court that he has embraced religion and undertaken biblical studies while in prison. He stated that he has turned to God and sought to illustrate the possibility of personal transformation by referring to the biblical account of Saul becoming Paul. He produced documents which he asserted demonstrate his participation in religious and rehabilitative programmes while in custody. 9.The accused further stated that he regrets having caused the death of the deceased and sought forgiveness from the court and from the deceased’s family. He assured the court that he has learnt from his experience in custody, that he has reformed and that he will not reoffend. He urged the court to consider imposing a non-custodial sentence and prayed that the period already spent in custody be taken into account when passing sentence. 10.The court has carefully considered those submissions. Rehabilitation is one of the recognized objectives of sentencing and a court is required to consider any genuine efforts by an offender to reform while in custody. The accused’s participation in religious instruction and rehabilitative programmes is therefore a factor that weighs in his favour. Equally, his expression of regret and plea for forgiveness are mitigating factors that the court cannot ignore. 11.However, mitigation must be weighed against the nature and gravity of the offence committed. Sentencing is not solely concerned with the circumstances of the offender. It must also reflect the seriousness of the offence, the harm caused and the need to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice. 12.The facts established during trial disclose a grave and senseless loss of human life. The evidence accepted by the court established that prior to the attack the accused uttered threats directed at the deceased. Those threats demonstrated hostility towards the deceased and foreshadowed the violence that was to follow. 13.The evidence further established that the accused deliberately armed himself with a knife which he obtained from a nearby mutura vendor. Having armed himself, he pursued the deceased as the latter attempted to flee. The deceased was unarmed and posed no immediate threat to the accused. 14.Upon catching up with the deceased, the accused stabbed him in the chest. The medical evidence established that the stab wound penetrated the chest cavity, damaged the lung and caused severe haemorrhage which ultimately resulted in death. The deceased lost his life as a direct consequence of the accused’s actions. 15.The court is satisfied that the attack was deliberate, unlawful and directed at a vulnerable and vital part of the body. The use of a lethal weapon against an unarmed person demonstrates a high degree of violence and a complete disregard for the sanctity of human life. The resulting death was neither accidental nor unforeseeable. It was the natural and probable consequence of the accused’s conduct. 16.The court has also considered the conduct of the accused immediately after the offence. The evidence established that after inflicting the fatal injury he did not seek assistance for the deceased, nor did he exhibit concern for the welfare of the person he had attacked. Instead, he left the scene, fled and was eventually arrested in Homa Bay County several weeks later. 17.Although post-offence conduct cannot by itself determine sentence, it remains a relevant consideration in assessing the offender’s attitude towards the offence and its consequences. The accused’s conduct after the attack does not assist his plea for leniency. 18.The court has further considered the contents of the presentence report. The report indicates that members of the local community and the local administration strongly oppose a non-custodial sentence. It also raises concerns regarding the accused’s suitability for community-based rehabilitation and reintegration. 19.The report further contains allegations that the accused threatened members of the deceased’s family and witnesses during the pendency of the trial. The court approaches such allegations with caution. They do not amount to criminal convictions and have not been established through a criminal trial. Consequently, the court does not treat them as separate offences or as proven criminal conduct. Nevertheless, they remain relevant in assessing the probation officer’s recommendation and the accused’s suitability for a non-custodial sentence. 20.The probation officer also expressed the view that the accused has not demonstrated genuine remorse. The court has considered that assessment alongside the accused’s oral mitigation, his expression of regret and the evidence of rehabilitative efforts undertaken while in custody. 21.The court accepts that the accused has expressed remorse for the death of the deceased and has made efforts towards personal reform while in custody. The court further accepts that his participation in religious and rehabilitative programmes reflects a measure of positive change. Those are matters which the court has taken into account in his favour. 22.However, remorse must be evaluated not only by words spoken at sentencing but also in light of the offender’s conduct and the overall circumstances of the case. While the court gives the accused credit for his expressions of regret and rehabilitative efforts, the weight to be attached to those factors is substantially diminished by the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed and the concerns raised in the presentence report. 23.The court has considered whether a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate. In light of the deliberate nature of the attack, the use of a deadly weapon, the prior threats directed at the deceased, the death that resulted and the views expressed in the presentence report, the court is satisfied that a non-custodial sentence would be wholly inappropriate. Such a sentence would neither reflect the gravity of the offence nor meet the objectives of punishment and deterrence. 24.The court is guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] KESC 2 (KLR), which affirmed that the death sentence prescribed for murder is no longer mandatory and that sentencing courts must exercise discretion after considering all aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The sentence imposed must therefore be individualized, proportionate and just. 25.The sanctity of human life is among the highest values protected by the Constitution. Where a person deliberately takes the life of another, the sentence imposed must adequately reflect society’s condemnation of the unlawful taking of human life. It must also serve the objectives of deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public. 26.In determining the appropriate custodial term, the court has borne in mind that the accused is a first offender and that he has expressed regret for the offence. The court has also given due consideration to his stated efforts at rehabilitation while in custody, his plea for mercy, his age and the period already spent in custody. Ordinarily, such factors would attract substantial weight in mitigation. 27.However, the present case is marked by a combination of aggravating circumstances which significantly elevate the accused’s culpability. The evidence established that the accused uttered threats directed at the deceased before the attack, deliberately armed himself with a knife, pursued a fleeing and unarmed victim and intentionally inflicted a fatal injury to the chest. These factors demonstrate a high degree of blameworthiness and a conscious decision to resort to lethal violence. 28.The court further considers it significant that after inflicting the fatal injury, the accused neither rendered assistance to the deceased nor sought medical intervention on his behalf. Instead, he left the scene and fled and was subsequently apprehended in another county. Although the court has considered the accused’s later expressions of regret, his conduct immediately after the offence remains relevant in assessing the gravity of the offence and his attitude towards its consequences. 29.Taken cumulatively, the prior threats, the deliberate acquisition of a knife, the pursuit of a fleeing and unarmed victim, the targeting of a vulnerable and vital part of the body, the loss of human life and the accused’s conduct after the offence place this case among the more aggravated instances of murder that come before the court. These factors substantially outweigh the mitigating circumstances relied upon by the accused. 30.The court is therefore satisfied that a very substantial custodial sentence is necessary to mark society’s condemnation of the offence, to deter similar acts of unlawful violence, to protect the public and to uphold the sanctity of human life. 31.At the same time, the court considers that a determinate sentence, as opposed to a sentence extending for the remainder of the offender’s natural life, appropriately preserves the possibility of eventual reintegration into society after the offender has served a lengthy period of incarceration and demonstrated sustained reform. 32.Having carefully weighed all the circumstances of the case, the court is satisfied that a sentence of fifty (50) years’ imprisonment is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of culpability exhibited by the accused. The sentence appropriately reflects the seriousness of the offence while taking into account the mitigating factors placed before the court. 33.Accordingly, the accused person, Sebby Roy Oyugi, is hereby sentenced to serve fifty (50) years’ imprisonment for the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 34.Pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court has taken into account the period of one thousand four hundred and forty-four (1,444) days that the accused has spent in custody pending trial. The sentence of fifty (50) years’ imprisonment shall therefore be reckoned after giving credit for the said period of one thousand four hundred and forty-four (1,444) days already spent in custody, which shall be accordingly deducted. 35.Right of appeal 14 days. 36.Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED & SIGNED THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.JOE M. OMIDOJUDGEAccused: Present.Ms. Muema, Prosecution Counsel for the State.Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma, Court Assistants.Ms. Muema: We thank the court. Justice has been served to the familythe deceased. I pray for a copy of the sentence.Accused: I pray for copies of proceedings and sentence.Court: Copies of proceedings, judgement and sentence to be supplied to both the prosecutions and the defence.JOE M. OMIDOJUDGE