https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10564

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E016 OF 2024** **REPUBLIC………………………………….……..PROSECUTION** **V E R S U S** **WELDON KIPKOECH RONO …………….…...……ACCUSED** **JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE** 1. The Accused, **WELDON KIPKOECH RONO** was charged with the offence of **Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code**. The particulars of the offence were that on **16th September, 2024** at Teganda Sub-Location in Bomet Central Sub-County within Bomet County, he murdered **JACKSON KOECH**. 2. The Accused took plea on **14th October, 2024** and pleaded not guilty. 3. A duly executed Plea Bargaining Agreement dated **14th October, 2025** was filed in Court and it indicated that the Accused had agreed to plead guilty to the offence of **Manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code**. 4. On 20th April, 2026, this Court accepted the Plea Agreement after interviewing the Accused and satisfying itself that he executed the Plea Agreement voluntarily. 5. On the same day **(20th April, 2026)**, the Accused took plea for the offence of Manslaughter. The charge and every element thereof was read and explained to him in the Kiswahili language which he understood and he pleaded guilty. The Court entered a plea of guilty for the offence of Manslaughter. 6. The facts as read by the Prosecutor and captured in the Plea Agreement are as follows:- **“On the 15th September, 2024 at around 2300hrs, the Accused WELDON KIPKOECH RONO who is a boda boda rider ferried the deceased JACKSON KOECH as a pillion passenger on his motor cycle KMFG 005M. They were heading home in Nyangores Village as they are neighbours. Along the way, about 400 metres from Bondet Market a scuffle ensued between the two of them and the deceased fell from the motor cycle. The scuffle escalated where WELDON hit JACKSON using stones.** **Two members of the public EUNICE MUTAI and DAISY CHERONO responded to the scuffle as it was near their house and came to the scene. They witnessed WELDON stoning JACKSON who was by then lying in a trench bleeding. They asked him to stop hitting him. They then raised an alarm and members of the public arrived. The Accused fled the scene aboard his motor cycle.** **Police Officers were called to the scene. They processed the body and took it to the mortuary. The deceased has visible injuries on the head and face. There were stones nearby covered in blood believed to be the murder weapon. The Accused was traced to his house where he was arrested and bloodied clothes recovered. A post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and cause of death established to be severe head injury due to heavy blunt object trauma to the head.** **The Accused was then charged.** 1. The Accused accepted the facts as true and the Court convicted him on his own plea of guilty for the lesser offence of **Manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.** **Pre-Sentence Report:** 1. The Report established that the both the offender and the deceased were friends despite their age difference. Both were neighbours and the offender had bought land from the brother to the deceased. On the day of the offence, both of them went out for a drink using the offender’s motor cycle. On their way home, while both on the same motor cycle a scuffle ensued while in their intoxicated state. It escalated to a full-blown fight where the offender stopped the motor cycle and started hurling stones at the deceased. The scuffle attracted the attention of neighbors who raised an alarm causing the offender to flee the scene. The deceased succumbed to the inflicted injuries. The offender was subsequently arrested and arraigned in Court. 2. The Community describes the Offender as well-known member of the community and hardworking prior to his arrest. They believe the offender is capable of reform and would reintegrate positively if granted a non-custodial sentence. **Victim Impact Statement:** 1. The Victim’s family indicated that they have come to terms with the incident and have found a measure of healing. They confirmed that the offender’s family approached them for reconciliation but they have not consented to the reconciliation. They oppose the Offender being granted a non-custodial sentence, maintaining that a custodial sentence would serve the interest of justice. **Accused’s Mitigation:** 1. The Report stated that the Offender has since expressed deep remorse for his actions and humbly seeks for forgiveness. He initiated reconciliation efforts between his family and that of the deceased. He prays for leniency and pleads for a non-custodial sentence. 2. Sentencing serves multiple purposes as enumerated in the **Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023** which outline the objectives of sentencing at paragraph 1.3.1 as follows:- **Sentences are imposed to meet the following objectives. There will be instances in which the objectives may conflict with each other- in so far as possible, sentences imposed should be geared towards meeting the objectives in totality.** 1. **Retribution.** 2. **Deterrence.** 3. **Rehabilitation.** 4. **Restorative justice.** 5. **Community Protection.** 6. **Denunciation.** 7. **Reconciliation.** 8. **Reintegration.** 9. 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.** 1. I have considered the circumstances of the case, the Pre-Sentence Report and the Accused’s mitigation that he was remorseful and regretted the event that led to the offence. The Accused, Community and the Probation Officer recommend a non-custodial sentence while Victim’s family Advocated for custodial sentence. 2. The **Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023** at paragraph 2.3.15 lists the factors that a court should consider when deciding to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence. They are as follows:- 3. **Gravity of the offence: In the absence of aggravating circumstances, or any other circumstance that renders a non-custodial sentence unsuitable, a sentence of imprisonment should be avoided with respect to sentences that have been adjudged as deserving less than three (3) years.** 4. **Criminal history of the offender: Taking into account the seriousness of the offence, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentences except where the seriousness of the offence crosses the custody threshold (where the offence is so serious that neither a fine or community sentence can be justified).** 5. **Children in conflict with the law: Generally speaking, non-custodial orders should be imposed as a matter of course in the case of children in conflict with the law. The exception to this is in circumstances where in light of the seriousness of the offence, coupled with other factors, the court is satisfied that a custodial order is the most appropriate and would be in the child’s best interest. Custodial orders should only be meted out as a measure of last resort and in accordance with the guidance provided under section 239 of the Children’s Act, 2022. The court shall also issue post-committal supervision orders upon completion of the committal orders or the attainment of the age of majority where it is appropriate to so do in light of the nature of the offence and circumstances of the offender.** 6. **Conduct of the offender: Non-custodial sentences are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.** 7. **Protection of the community: Where there is evidence that the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community, a custodial sentence may be more appropriate. The probation officer’s reports should inform the court of the risk posed by the offender to the community in order to inform sentencing.** 8. **Offender’s responsibility to third parties: Where committing an offender to a custodial sentence is likely to unduly prejudice others, particularly vulnerable persons who depend on them, a court should consider if, in light of the nature and seriousness of the offence, the objectives of sentencing can be met with a non-custodial sentence. The court should enquire into the offender’s personal circumstances and, where appropriate, seek the assistance of a pre-sentence report.** 9. This is also in compliance with **Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution** in as far as **Alternative Dispute Resolution** is concerned and timely resolution of matters. 10. In the final analysis, it is my finding that this was not a suitable case for grant of a non-custodial sentence. A life was lost unnecessarily. In my view, the Accused must serve a custodial sentence. 11. In the end, the Accused, **Joshua Kimutai Ngeno** is sentenced to serve **12 Years imprisonment**. The sentence to run from the date of plea taking being **14th October, 2024.** 12. 14 days Right of Appeal. **Judgement delivered, dated and signed this 16th day of July, 2026.** **........................................** **HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR** **JUDGE** **Judgement delivered in the presence of;** **Siele/Zachary – Court Assistants** **Ms. Koech for the State**