https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8214

Republic v Ruto (Criminal Case E017 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8214 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8214 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kabarnet Criminal Case E017 of 2021 TM Matheka, J May 29, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Victor Kiprop Ruto Accused Ruling 1.The accused, Victor Kiprop Ruto was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on 5th day of April 2021 at around 2230Hrs at Three Ways Bar at Kipsaraman Trading Centre, Kipsaraman Division, in Baringo North Sub-County within Baringo County murdered one REUBEN Kemei Cherutoi alia Lobon. 2.The accused denied the charge, and the matter proceeded to full trial with the prosecution availing 8 witnesses and on accused being placed on his defence, he gave sworn statement and did not call witness. 3.On 18/10/2025 the Hon R. Ngetich J (as she then was) delivered a Judgment in which she found the accused guilty of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. 4.It has befallen upon me to sentence the convicted person. 5.The empowering law is section 200 as read with section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6.A pre-sentence report was filed on 28/10/2025. After providing the background checks of the offender, the views of the secondary victims, the community and attitude to the offence – the PACS officer concluded that the offender before court was a first offender who has been described to be of prior good conduct. He and his family seek a non-custodial sentence indicating he is a first time offender who is the sole breadwinner of his young family; that they pray for leniency from the court and they add that they approached the family of the victim several times to seek reconciliation and offer compensation as per Tugen traditions but the family of the victim turned them down. However, they state that they are still willing to pursue reconciliation and they have initiated the process again and this time they are still willing to pursue reconciliation and they have initiated the process again and this time they got a positive feedback from the family of the victim thus they will continue with the process until the end and offer compensation as it shall be agreed upon guided by Tugen culture. 7.The local administration describe the offender as being a calm person and as being of prior good conduct thus they were shocked to hear that he was being charged with murder. They add that they have no issue with the offender and his crime can be attributed to alcoholism. Since he was the sole breadwinner for his young family and he also supported his siblings financially, they do not oppose a non-custodial sentence as the community is ready to welcome back the offender. 8.The wife and son of the victim on their part state that they do not oppose a non-custodial sentence for the offender. They indicate that they do not oppose reconciliation and welcome the renewed efforts towards the same and state that whatever form of compensation that shall be agreed upon shall go a long way in assisting them as a family especially considering the heavy burden of school fees that they currently have. 9.Two brothers of the victim were available for interview. While one, a doctor, indicated as a family upon seeing that the wife of the victim was greatly following up on the matter they decided to keep off, the other brother stated that although previously reconciliation failed, they now welcome reconciliation efforts and they welcome the family of the offender to pursue the same. Inquiry shows that indeed the family of the offender approached them to seek forgiveness severally but some members of the victim’s family were opposed to it; that the two families are in advanced talks geared towards reconciliation and the family of the offender is willing to offer compensation as per the Tugen culture. 10.The PACs officer made recommendations:-that the criminality of the offender can be addressed through counselling on alcohol abuse and guidance on anger management and conflict resolution. That placed on Probation PACs will undertake counselling and guidance for the offender, engage the two families to complete the reconciliation process and provide any further assistance that would ensure proper rehabilitation of the offender and victim support for the victim’s family. 11.The basis for the sentencing hearing cannot be overemphasized. This is evident from the first edition of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines where the then Chief Justice made this observation;Sentencing has been a problematic area in the administration of justice. It is one of those issues that has constantly given the Judiciary a bad name – and deservedly so. Sometimes out rightly absurd, disproportionate and inconsistent sentences have been handed down in criminal cases. This has fuelled public perception that the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing is a whimsical exercise by judicial officers.11Sentencing Policy Guidelines Hon Chief Justice Willy MutungaThe Hon Justice Msagha Mbogholi stated this in the same guidelinesReaching a fair decision in sentencing is neither an easy nor straightforward process; several considerations come into play. While sentences are defined by law, the measure of what is an appropriate sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of judges and magistrates. As Justice McArdle is famously quoted saying, “Anyone can try a case. That is as easy as falling off a log. The difficulty comes in knowing what to do with a man once he has been found guilty.” Sentencing is as important as all other aspects of a criminal trial. Sentencing in Kenya has been marked by instances of unwarranted disparities, lack of certainty and transparency in decisions, disproportionate sentences and lack of uniformity in sentences with respect to same offences committed under similar circumstances. In other respects, lack of sufficient public education has contributed to misconceptions about sentencing, especially the undue focus on custodial sentences to the exclusion of other appropriate forms of sentences.22Chairperson - Judicial Taskforce on SentencingSentencing must be based on the principles of fairness, justice, proportionality and commitment to public safetyThe sentencing guideline 2023 provide:Manslaughter5.2.6 Where an unlawful killing is done without an intention to kill (or cause grievous bodily harm?), the offence of manslaughter may be made out. In sentencing such cases, as with murder, the focus must lie primarily upon culpability. With manslaughter cases, the degree of culpability may vary widely, from the ‘one punch’ manslaughter to the case involving a prolonged campaign of domestic violence which ultimately results in the victim’s death. The focus must be on the offender’s actions and intentions at the time of the crime in assessing the degree of culpability. Sometimes a nuanced approach is called for. 5.2.7 In addition to the generic features contained in the GATS, some features that are relevant to assessing culpability in manslaughter cases include, but are not limited to the following:i.Where death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which involved an intention by the offender to cause harm falling short of grievous bodily harm e.g., one punch that caused the victim to fall and suffer a catastrophic and fatal brain injury.ii.Where death was caused in the course of an unlawful act that carried a high risk of death or grievous bodily harm which was or ought to have been obvious to the offender e.g., driving a motor vehicle dangerously through a crowded street.iii.Where death was caused in the course of committing or escaping from a serious offence.iv.Where the offender tried to conceal the offence by concealing, dismembering, or destroying the body.v.Where death was caused in the course of self-defence or defence of another (though not amounting to a defence).vi.Where there was no intention by the offender to cause ANY harm AND no obvious risk of anything more than minor harm e.g., the offender pushed the victim out of the way and the victim fell and suffered a fatal injury.vii.Where the offender’s responsibility was substantially reduced by mental disorder, learning disability or lack of maturity. Examples might include the woman who suffers severe post-natal depression, or the war veteran who suffers post-traumatic stress disorder to the extent that he behaves in a way that is erratic and violent in the face of ordinary day-to-day stressors.viii.Where there has been a history of violence towards the victim by the offender, this might be relevant to sentencing.ix.Significant mental or physical suffering caused to the deceased.x.Where the offence involved use of a weapon. xi. Offence committed in the presence of children (particularly relevant to domestic violence deaths) 12.I conducted a sentence hearing:-During the sentence hearing Ms Kosgei for the state submitted that the accused this court found him guilty of manslaughter under section 202 as read with section 205 of Penal Code. A life was lost breadwinner of a family lost his life – the children of the deceased have difficulty in schooling having been left with their mother as sole breadwinner. She submitted that the Aggravating circumstances were that the accused used excessive force, and caused severe injuries to deceased. She urged the court to consider an appropriate sentence. 13.The court was urged to see the objectives of the sentencing policy guidelines and provide a sentence that was deterrent. See pre-sentence report. There is proposal for non-custodial sentence. 14.She submitted that the Pre-Sentence Report was not binding and that it should act a guide. 15.From the report – there have been no reconciliation up to now and the proposal for future Reconciliation is not reliable. 16.She relied on R Vs Kirui & Anor KEHC 3686, where the judge rejected the proposed non-custodial sentence considering the aggravating circumstances proceeded to grant a custodial sentence. Section 202 as read with section 205 which prescribes penalty of life imprisonment is clear. However, considering the previous holding of the High Court and the Court of Appeal she proposed 15 years imprisonment. 17.Mr. Kiptoo for the offender told the court that the accused fought with the deceased while drunk, no excessive force, no malice afterthought. He submitted that the Reconciliation had been stalled by the brother of the deceased – who demanded Ksh. 4 million while the accused had offered Ksh. 1 million. The family of the accused has been willing to offer compensation. He urged the court to distinguish R v Kirui. The circumstances are not similar. In mitigation he submitted that the accused is young man 34 years old who regrets incident which attributed to alcohol. That it happened in a bar. That he is remorseful. 18.He has stopped taking alcohol, he has learnt anger management skills, has been active in bible studies, Counsel associated himself with the report 20/10/2025.The wife of the deceased, his adult children do not oppose a non-custodial sentence and the Accused was the sole breadwinner. 19.They depended on him. That his wife was a housewife doing casual work washing clothes for neighbours. He prayed for leniency. The court was urged to consider that the offender was a 1st offender and consider – the time accused had been in custody. 20.I have carefully considered the submissions by both counsel. I have looked at the judgment. I have considered the pre-sentence report and the sentencing policy guidelines. 21.I have also looked the authority cited and the circumstances are different 22.The deceased sustained one penetrating stab wound on the left chest – this happened in circumstances were there was an altercation that led to fight; that there was malice afore-thought. 23.I accept the recommendation by PACs and find that a non-custodial sentence is suitable in these circumstances. 24.I have taken into account the period spent in custody. I order that the offender be placed on Probation supervision for three years on condition that he abides by the Probation Order. In default the convict may have to serve a custodial sentence. RULING DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH MAY 2026MUMBUA T MATHEKAJUDGE