[2019] KEHC 10729 (KLR)
The court found that, although the accused was convicted of murder, the circumstances—namely, mutual intoxication, provocation by the deceased, and the accused's subsequent remorse and reformation—mitigated against imposing a long custodial sentence. The judge determined that the absence of a specific intention to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 10729 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Philip Kiplagat Rono
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 69 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentencing Ruling After Conviction for Murder
- Outcome
- The accused is sentenced to seven years imprisonment from the date of first arraignment, followed by two years probation.
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing, Mitigation, Provocation, Custodial Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Philip Kiplagat Rono
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing Ruling After Conviction for Murder
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be sentenced for murder or a lesser offence given the circumstances of provocation and intoxication.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the accused considering the mitigating factors presented.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the accused was convicted of murder, the circumstances—namely, mutual intoxication, provocation by the deceased, and the accused's subsequent remorse and reformation—mitigated against imposing a long custodial sentence. The judge determined that the absence of a specific intention to commit homicide, the accused's honest admission, and his time already spent in custody justified a reduced sentence. Accordingly, a custodial sentence of seven years, commencing from the date of first arraignment, followed by a two-year probationary period, was deemed sufficient to serve the interests of justice.
Court Disposition
The accused is sentenced to seven years imprisonment from the date of first arraignment, followed by two years probation.
Orders
- The accused shall serve a custodial sentence of seven years commencing from 04/06/2014.
- Upon completion of the custodial sentence, the accused shall serve a probationary sentence of two years.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO.69 OF 2014
REPUBLIC.........................................................................................STATE
VERSUS
PHILIP KIPLAGAT RONO .....................................................ACCUSED
SENTENCE RULING
1. The Accused Person, Philip Kiplagat Rono, is convicted of the murder of Nickson Kibiwott contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. I delivered the judgment on 04/10/2018 finding the Accused Person culpable of the murder after a fully-fledged trial in which the Accused Person, when placed on his defence, exercised his constitutional right to remain silent.
3. The facts as they emerged from the evidence show that the Deceased and the Accused Person, who were acquaintances, met at a local beer joint and engaged in an argument which soon degenerated into a physical confrontation. The proprietor of the joint, together with other patrons separated the two and asked the Accused Person to leave the place as a way of keeping peace. The Accused Person left but only ephemerally. He returned and waited by the gate to the joint. There, he attacked the Deceased as he left the joint later that evening. He stabbed him on the neck with a knife and took off.
4. It was remarkable that during the sentencing hearing the Accused Person explained why he chose to remain silent during trial rather than testify in his defence. “The incident happened when were drinking. In our drunkenness, we quarrelled….”, he said. “I have always admitted that I caused the death of the Deceased. That is why I remained silent instead of offering a defence…” He told the Court that he felt extremely provoked because the Deceased repeatedly called him a thief.
5. I found the Accused Person’s attitude and disputational logic remarkable. Remarkably refreshing. Had he told the story he told during the sentence hearing, it is likely that the verdict would have been manslaughter rather than murder. But he considered it anathema to do so since he “knew” he had caused the death of the Deceased; hence his choice to remain silent.
6. In mitigation, he offered that he has had more than four years in custody to reflect. During that time, he said, he has come to know God. He is no longer the same person. He told the Court that he is remorseful for choosing to be provoked to act in anger and in violence. He told the Court that he has now reformed. He pleaded for leniency.
7. Mr. Magata asked the Court to credit the Accused Person for his honesty. He informed the Court that he is married with two children and that the wife left after the Accused had been taken into custody. He is still relatively youthful at 33 years old with a whole life ahead of him.
8. The State Counsel informed the Court that the family of the Deceased did not wish to address the Court but that the Accused Person should be treated as a first offender.
9. Given the circumstances in which the offence was committed, and the self-reflective stance the Accused Person has demonstrated; and given all the mitigating circumstances outlined above, my view is that a long prison sentence will not serve a very useful purpose in this instance. There was no specific intention to commit homicide; both the Accused Person and the Deceased were drunk; and had engaged in a physical fight.
10. In the specific circumstances of this case, I have formed the opinion that a custodial sentence of seven years followed by a probationary sentence of two years will be sufficient sentence for this crime. In addition, the custodial sentence will begin running from the date when the Accused Person was first arraigned that is 04/06/2014 since he has been in custody since that time. The probationary period will follow immediately after he is released from Prison.
11. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered in Nakuru this 15th day of January, 2019
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE