Republic v Gikonyo (Criminal Case E013 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8221 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling)

Republic v Gikonyo (Criminal Case E013 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8221 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8221 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyeri Criminal Case E013 of 2024 DKN Magare, J June 10, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Paul Kabiru Gikonyo Respondent Ruling 1.The matter was concluded by way of plea bargain. The accused was thereafter charged with the offence of manslaughter, contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code, Cap. 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence were that on the 29th day of October 2024, at Kagochi village, Kagochi sub-location, Muthea Location, in Mathira East Sub-county, within Nyeri County unlawfully caused the death of Joseph Mwangi Mwai. 2.The accused entered into a plea bargain agreement. The court took him through Section 137F of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said section provides as follows:(1)Before the court records a plea agreement, the accused person shall be placed under oath and the court shall address the accused person personally in court, and shall inform the accused person of, and determine that the accused person understands—(a)the right to—i.plead not guilty, or having already so pleaded, to persist in that plea;ii.be presumed innocent until proved guilty;iii.remain silent and not to testify during the proceedings;iv.not being compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;v.a full trial;vi.be represented by a legal representative of his own choice, and where necessary, havevii.the court appoint a legal representative;viii.examine in person or by his legal representative the witnesses called by theix.prosecution before the court and to obtain the attendance and carry out thex.examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court on the samexi.conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution;(b)that by accepting the plea agreement, he is waiving his right to a full trial;(c)the nature of the charge he is pleading to;(d)any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine, community service order, probation or conditional or unconditional discharge;(e)any mandatory minimum penalty;(f)any applicable forfeiture;(g)the court’s authority to order compensation under section 175(2)(b), restitution under section 177, or both;(h)that by entering into a plea agreement, he is waiving the right to appeal except as to the extent or legality of sentence;(i)the prosecution’s right, in the case of prosecution for perjury or false statement, to use against the accused any statement that the accused gives in the agreement.(2)The prosecutor shall lay before the court the factual basis of a plea agreement and the court shall determine and be satisfied that there exists a factual basis of the plea agreement. 3.The accused confirmed that he understood that the offense carried a life sentence and he had not been promised any sentence. The court accordingly read the information to the accused who pleaded guilty. The Plea Agreement was adopted, and the same was read to the accused, who confirmed the contents and signatures, both his and that of his advocate. The court convicted him on his own plea of guilty. Facts were narrated and exhibits produced. 4.The brief facts of the case are that on 29th October, 2024 at Kagochi village, Kagochi sub-location, Muthea Location in Mathira East sub-county within Nyeri County in the Republic of Kenya, the accused person killed Joseph Mwangi Mwai. 5.The evidence reveals that prior to the incident, one Joseph Nderitu had frequented the residence of the first wife to the accused person to collect milk. However, the accused person suspected he was having a love affair with the wife. 6.On the fateful date of 29th October 2024, the deceased arrived at the residence shortly after the said Nderitu had left; and was there to discuss business as he traded in selling onions, tomatoes and firewood. The presence of the deceased is corroborated by the wife to the deceased who confirms that the deceased informed her that he was to deliver some onions and tomatoes to the first wife of the accused person. 7.That while the first wife was discussing business with the deceased, the accused person returned home and demanded that she open the door, and found her in the company of a male occupant. 8.That the accused person immediately picked a fight with the deceased, accusing the wife of being unfaithful. That a struggle ensued in the sitting room and as the deceased attempted to escape, he was stabbed in the chest by the accused person. 9.The first wife then raised an alarm by screaming for help, prompting the accused person to give chase and assault her with kicks and blows while yielding the dagger, causing several cuts on her cheek, ear and fingers. 10.The first wife managed to escape, was rescued and taken to Karatina Level 4 hospital for treatment. She later reported the assault incident at Karatina Police Station vide OB No. 43/29/10/2024. 11.Upon gathering of a crowd at the compound, the accused person ran away, dropping the dagger near the body of the deceased. 12.The evidence revealed that the deceased was found lying at the door of the house belonging to the first wife to the accused person, soaked in blood. 13.The accused person later reported the incident to Karatina Police Station through OB No. 28/30/10/2024 at 13.33hrs, following which he was arrested for the said murder. 14.The post mortem report established that the deceased suffered penetrating chest stab wound with injury to the pericardium and descending Aorta and venacover. As such, the cause of death was not as a result of natural causes. 15.There was examination of exhibits and report of Government Analysts relating to DNA was produced. Post-mortem was carried out on the deceased on 6.11.2024. The prosecution produced the following documents:a.Post mortem report dated 6th October, 2024b.DNA reportc.Exhibit memod.Dagger 16.The accused confirmed the details of the facts as true and correct. The court entered a plea of guilty. The accused was convicted on his own plea of guilty. 17.The accused mitigated that he is remorseful and had reflected on his action. He is 66 years old. He regretted the events leading to loss of life. He indicated that he was a first offender. He has two families and the second wife died during his incarceration. The facts on the plea agreement were sufficient and the court did not find it necessary to call for a pre-sentence report. It is clear that the accused found the first wife and the deceased in flagrante delicto. They pretended to have been selling tomatoes, onions and firewood. None of these items were recovered. The deceased and the accused’s first wife had locked the door while negotiating on non-existent tomatoes, onions and firewood. 18.This must have enraged the accused to the extreme as it cannot be that negotiations over tomatoes, onions and firewood required the door to be closed. It is my finding that the deceased called the death upon himself. There was no period for the accused to reflect or plan for the offence. It was instantaneous and under extreme provocation. 19.I have considered the fact that the deceased not only injured the convict’s family but also did whatever he wanted to do in his house. In the case of Francis Maina Gachara V Republic [2006] EKLR it was stated that: -“What the evidence discloses is that the convict having been provoked managed to chase away an intruder who wanted to harass his wife in his house. As the saying goes a man’s house is his castle, he has a right to enjoy all the comfort of his house without interference from any quarters. This includes enjoying the company of his family without interference from an outsider. In the present case it is clear that the convict did what was required of him by chasing away the uninvited guest who had gone to his house to harass his wife. 20.In the case of Jedidah Wambui Karanja & another v Esther Njoki Ndirangu & another [2019] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated as doth:The destruction of Peter’s goods in the course of the demolition of his house built on his land was indeed a grave act of malicious and imprudent destruction of private property under the guise of eviction. A man’s house is his castle and in this case the appellants violated the Peter’s right to private property by a wholly unwarranted invasion which must attract the full indignation of the law. 21.In the case of Elizabeth Wambui Githinji & 29 others v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 4 others [2019] eKLR the court of appeal, Ouko JA as then he was mused as doth:Just as the sanctity of a person’s property in the English common law was recognized in the famous dictum that an Englishman’s home (or occasionally, house) is his castle and fortress, the Constitution and land laws in Kenya protect, as fundamental the right to acquire and own property of any description; and in any part of Kenya. This sanctity was so important in the days of old that one Right Honourable, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham graphically explained it thus;The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter. 22.The foregoing describes the feelings the Convict may have gone through. He expected safety of fidelity to his marriage as he eked a living, but someone was busy working, working at his home behind a closed door, in the accused’s house negotiating on nonexistent tomatoes, onions and firewood. It was the height of impunity not only to have an affair with someone’s wife but also to go into his home to do so. This is not at night when thieves, robbers, cats, dogs and other scoundrels are roaming about, but broad light. No one can begrudge a man for defending his wife, his dignity and his castle, however poor he was. It cannot be said that the deceased did not see it coming. 23.The matter is now fixed for sentencing. It is understood that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court. The Court of Appeal, on its part, in Bernard Kimani Gacheru vs. Republic [2002] eKLR restated that:It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the High Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court. Similarly, sentence must depend on the facts of each case. On appeal, the appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless, that sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial court overlooked some material factor, or took into account some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle. Even if, the Appellate Court feels that the sentence is heavy and that the Appellate Court might itself not have passed that sentence, these alone are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the discretion of the trial court on sentence unless, anyone of the matters already states is shown to exist. 24.In the case of Shadrack Kipkoech Kogo - vs - R. Eldoret Criminal Appeal No.253 of 2003 the Court of Appeal stated thus:Sentence is essentially an exercise of discretion by the trial court and for this court to interfere it must be shown that in passing the sentence, the sentencing court took into account an irrelevant factor or that a wrong principle was applied or that short of these, the sentence itself is so excessive and therefore an error of principle must be interfered; See also Sayeka –vs- R. (1989 KLR 306) 25.In Hillary Kipkirui Mutai v Republic [2022] eKLR, it was held that:9.Sentencing is an important aspect of the administration of justice. Noting that sentencing is based on a judicial officer’s discretion, this Court must be careful not to interfere with such a decision, unless it is demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive, was illegal, improper or founded based on misrepresentation of material facts. 26.In deciding on sentence, the court is bound by precedent and the applicable statute and by sentencing guidelines. The applicable statute is section 202, as read with section 205 of the penal code. Section 205 provides as follows:Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. 27.In determining culpability, the court is guided by the circumstances of the offense, which may justify either reducing or increasing the sentence. The offense was motivated by or did it demonstrate hostility based on the age of the victim? The post-mortem report showed that deceased was 50 years old. This was not a gender-based violence case. 28.The mitigating factors are compelling. The circumstances of the offence show that the accused’s emotions were tried beyond measure. I note that it was only one stab wound that was inflicted, meaning there was no repetition. The deceased was killed after being found in the accused’s house with the accused’s wife behind closed doors. It is irrelevant what they were doing. The most relevant question is what a reasonable person will think or in other words, what came to the accused’s mind. No reasonable person will believe that sale of tomatoes required the door to be closed with the male and female occupants inside. 29.The culpability was so low that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate. Given that it was a one-off affair, the accused does not need to undergo probation. 30.I therefore sentence the Convict to 2 years suspended sentence from today given that he had already been in custody since 30.10.2024. Should he commit any felony after today within the 2 years, he shall be arrested to serve the remainder of the 2 years. Order 31.I therefore make the following orders:a.Therefore, I sentence the Convict to 2 years suspended sentence from today given that he had already been in custody since 30.10.2024.b.The right of appeal of 14 days as to the extent or legality of the sentence, explained in Kiswahili.c.The file is closed. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NYERI THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-SIX. JUDGMENT DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.KIZITO MAGAREJUDGEIn the presence of:-Mr. Kihara for the StateMrs. Mathai for the AccusedAccused presentCourt Assistant – Martin