https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12525

Republic v Rama (Criminal Case 27 of 2018) [2026] KEHC 12525 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12525 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Mombasa Criminal Case 27 of 2018 WM Kagendo., J July 31, 2026 Between The Republic Prosecution and Randu Katana Karisa alias Rama Accused Sentence 1.The accused, Randu Katana Karisa, was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. Following a full trial, this Court found him guilty and convicted him of the offence. 2.Before passing sentence, the Court called for a Pre-Sentence Inquiry Report and a Victim Impact Statement. The Pre-Sentence Inquiry Report dated 21st April 2026 has been duly considered. Despite efforts by the Probation Officer,the deceased's family could not be traced and, consequently, no victim impact statement was obtained. 3.The report shows that the accused is a 46-year-old man from Kwale County. He has no formal education or vocational training and has relied on casual labour for his livelihood. He was previously married and is the father of ten children, although his marriage broke down following the incident and he has since lost contact with his immediate family. The report further indicates that he voluntarily surrendered himself to the police after the incident. 4.The report further reveals that the deceased was a relative of the accused's wife and had been accommodated in the accused's homestead. According to theinquiry, tensions arose after allegations that the deceased had made inappropriate advances towards the accused's wife. Those tensions culminated in a confrontation during which the accused unlawfully attacked the deceased, resulting in his death. The report concludes that the offence arose in the context of prolonged domestic conflict rather than premeditation. 5.During the social inquiry, the accused expressed remorse for his actions and acknowledged the irreversible consequences of his conduct. He accepted that his response was excessive and unlawful and stated that he had acted in anger and emotional distress. The report further notes that he voluntarily surrendered to the police following the incident and has remained cooperative throughout the criminal justice process. 6.The Probation Officer reports that the accused enjoys acceptance within his community and that the local administration has not associated him with any other criminal conduct. The community expressed willingness to support his eventual reintegration through structured supervision. However, the report also notes that his family support system is weak, and the absence of input from the victim's family remains a limitation in assessing the full impact of the offence. 7.I have carefully considered the mitigation by the accused, the Probation Officer's report, the submissions by the prosecution, and the applicable principles of sentencing. The offence of murder is among the gravest offences known to our criminal law because it results in the unlawful deprivation of human life. Human life is sacred and is protected by the Constitution. Any sentence imposed must therefore reflect society's denunciation of such conduct while at the same time remaining proportionate to the circumstances of the offence and the offender. 8.In mitigation, I have taken into account that the accused voluntarily surrendered to the police, expressed genuine remorse, accepted responsibility for his actions, and that the offence appears to have arisen from a domestic conflict rather than from prior planning or premeditation. I have also considered his personal circumstances, including his limited educational background and the favourable assessment by the community regarding his prospects for rehabilitation. 9.Against those mitigating factors, the Court must bear in mind the irreversible loss suffered by the deceased and the seriousness of the offence. Although the circumstances disclose provocation of a domestic nature, the accused chose to resort to unlawful violence, resulting in the death of another person. Such conduct calls for a custodial sentence that reflects the gravity of the offence while recognising the mitigating circumstances. 10.Having balanced all the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence of fifteen (15) years' imprisonment is just, fair, and proportionate. 11.Accordingly, the accused, Randu Katana Karisa, is hereby sentenced to fifteen (15) years' imprisonment. 12.Pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence shall run from 4th June 2018, being the date from which the accused has been continuously held in lawful custody. The period already spent in custody has therefore been fully taken into account. 13.Right of appeal explained.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2026.WENDY K. MICHENIJUDGEHIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA MR MUTHURI FOR THE CONVICT PRESENT MR SIRIMA FOR THE STATE PRESENTSIGNED BY/FOR:HON. LADY JUSTICE WENDY MICHENIMombasa High Court