Republic v Ruto (Criminal Case E10 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 9430 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Sentence)

Republic v Ruto (Criminal Case E10 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 9430 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9430 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldama Ravine Criminal Case E10 of 2023 TM Matheka, J June 30, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Moses Kipchirchir Ruto Accused Sentence 1.The accused Moses Kipchirchir 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 the 12th day of November 2021 at Mogotio Estate within Baringo Country the accused murdered veronica Kanini Njuguna. The prosecution called 7 witnesses upon being found to have a case to answer he was put to his defence , he gave sworn statement and did not call any witness. 2.After a full trial by Hon. Ng’etich – J as she then was, it became my duty under Section 200 as read with Section 201 of the CPC to sentence the accused. The law provides that when a judgment has been delivered and sentence not given then subsequent Judge can mete out the sentence . 3.I sought a presentence Report from PACs and during the sentence and mitigation hearing I heard counsel for the state, and for the accused. 4.Ms. Omari for the state reiterated the manner in which the deceased died, and the accused person’s participation – that even the family of the accused person did not want him, and that he was facing a similar charge is HCCRC E002/2023. That the state believed he was a serial killer. That he showed no remorse, that the social inquiry report indicated that he deserved a long custodial sentence and that his case called for the ultimate sentence of life imprisonment. She relied on Muruatetu & 2 Others –vs- Republic [2021] eKLR - where the Supreme Court stated that the death sentence was not unconstitutional. 5.Ms. Barasah for the accused submitted that accused was 37 years, married with 2 children, remorseful and that at the time of committing the offence he was schizophrenic. She referred the court to the report from Nakuru PGH dated 26/1/2022 and proceedings by Hon Korir J (as he then was) Indicating that the accused person was mentally ill. She referred the court to Leonard Mwangemi Munyasia –vs- Republic [2015] eKLR where criminal responsibility was removed from accused due to mental illness. 6.It was also submitted that the convict had been in custody since 2021, and that this was sufficient custodial period, and the court to give him a non-custodial sentence. 7.On the issue of mental illness, Ms. Omari submitted that it was never raised as a defence, neither was it put to the prosecution witnesses – the prosecution view was that if the accused has schizophrenia then he needed to be incarcerated as he was a danger to society. 8.On his part the convict told the court:Naomba MsamahaNimejutia, I seek last chance.Niko na watoto wawili. Nilikuwa tegemeo 9.Taking into account the submissions alleging mental illness of the convict, I sought a further mental assessment report from the psychiatrist. The same was filed and on 19/5/2026 – both counsel addressed the report. 10.Ms. Barasa submitted that the report only confirmed the current state of the convict’s mind – but did not disprove mental instability at the time of commission of the offence. 11.Ms. Omari submitted that the accused was in good mental status – that at the beginning of the trial, he must have been confirmed fit to stand trial. That the convict ought to have produced before court previous reports to show that he was unwell. 12.That in addition he was very economical with the truth, and that social inquiry report showed that he had ensured his relatives could not be reached for interview. 13.I have carefully considered the submissions by counsel and 2 issues arise:i.Whether the convict had a mental illness to warrant the application of Leonard Mwangemi Munyasia (above).ii.What is the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of the case? 14.On the 1st issue - I perused the court record. 15.A mental assessment was ordered by the court on 24/1/2022 – after the court was told that the report from psychiatrist was inconclusive – the prosecutor sought more time as the psychiatrist needed to carry out a further examination. 16.On 27/1/2022 the prosecutor Ms. Kitilit told the court that the mental assessment report showed that the psychiatrist, Dr. Karanja indicated that the accused was not fit to take plea and he required treatment while in custody. The prosecutor sought a mention in one month. 17.The Judge stated:I have seen the psychiatric report dated 26/1/2022 prepared by Dr. Karanja of Nakuru Hospital and noted that the accused is suffering from mental illness and is therefore not fit to plead. In such a situation Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code should kick in. however, I will for now refer the accused for treatment at Nakuru General Hospital. He will be held at Nakuru G.K Prison. The prosecution to file a report on the progress of his treatment. Mention on 21/2/2022 to find if the accused will be in a position on to plead or whether the court should invoke Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 18.When the matter came back for Mention on 21/2/2022 on the progress, the report was not ready. The court stated:The prisons authorities to ensure that accused person is receiving treatment for his mental illness. A report on the progress of the treatment of the accused to be filed before 21/3/2022 when the matter will be mention before the Deputy Registrar on 7/3/2022. 19.Same order was made on 21/3/2022. 20.On 16/5/2022, the court was told that the psychiatrist required that the accused be accompanied by a relative to the hospital but the relatives had refused. 21.On 16/5/2022, the court gave the following directions:-The Investigating officer to provide the names of the brothers or sisters of accused to the court assistant for purposes of their being summoned to court so that they can be told the importance of cooperating with the doctor on the treatment of the accused. Mention on 20/6/2022. Routine mention before the Deputy Registrar on 30/5/2022. 22.On 25/7/2022 the court was told that there was no progress report on the treatment – the court directed the prosecution to “avail a report on the treatment of the accused’s mental disease” 23.By 24/10/22 no relative had been found to accompany the accused to hospital. On 21/11/2022 I was on relieving duties at Kabarnet and since it was clear that by then no relative was available to accompany the accused to the psychiatrist I directed that the psychiatrist proceeds to assess the accused and provide a report. 24.On 13/12/2022 – the accused was found fit to plead, his mental status was now found to be normal. He took plea, and a plea of not guilty was entered. The matter was taken over by Ng’etich J as she then was on 20/3/2023. During the trial – the accused did not have any mental breakdown or signs of illness. I sought a further assessment vide order made on 16/4/2026. By a report dated 27/4/2026 Dr. Karanja S.W Consulted psychiatric (REF PSYC/CON/VOL OO/2022) the psychiatrist stated:“In his past psychiatric and medical history, he has, he has no history of treatment for any mental or chronic medical condition... there are no signs or symptoms of mental illness in the above named...” 25.A report dated 23/11/2022 Ref. PSYC/CON/VOL.II/2022 psychiatrist Dr. Erica C.A Adagala consultant psychiatrist had this to say;RE:PSYCHIATRIC REPORT MOSES KIPCHIRCHIR RUTO CRIMINAL CASE NO E034 of 2021 The above was brought for mental assessment following a case that he is accused of in court, He knows the case at hand and recounts the events well. He reports that he is an orphan and was raised by an uncle. He didn't attend school. He has 1 sibling who is alive and well in Mogotio and another who passed on due to effects of excessive use of alcohol. He reports that he has never had any psychiatric symptoms nor treated before. He doesn't use any substance of abuse. He has never been arrested before.MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION I found a calm young man. Rapport was established and he slightly avoided eye contact. His mood was normal. His affect was mood congruent. His speech was sensible and of normal tone, rate and volume. He denied having any hallucinations or delusions. His cognitive functions were intact. He had insight as he was able to understand what was going on around him as well as the state of his psychological well-being. CONCLUSION The above named, Moses Kipchirchir, is fit to plead. His mental! state is normal. He understands the case at hand and will be able to follow the court proceedings and defend himself in a court of law. 26.The earlier report dated 26/1/2022 Ref: PSYC/CON/VOL 11/2022/012. Dr. Karanja stated:-RE: PSYCHIATRIC REPORT MOSES KIPCHIRCHIR RUTO-CC NO.HCCR E.034/2021 HISTORY AS GIVEN BY ABOVE NAMED IRE: RELATIVES DID NOT AVAIL THEMSESLVES The above named says he was arrested as a G Murder suspect in the murder of several people. which he admits to having cone and says it was due to being a devil worshipper. He says he was inducted into the practice by a certain lady and that she usually appears to him and instructs him to kill people.He says he murdered 24 people.In his past psychiatric and medical! history, he has no history of treatment for mental illness or chronic medical! Condition. He has no known food or drug allergies no history of being admitted in hospital. In his family history. He says both of his parents passed away, his father due to alcoholism and his mother due to HIV. He has two brothers. He is the last born. There is no known family history of mental illness.In his personal history, he resides in Mogotio. He studied up to standard 3 when his mother passed away. He has been working as a herder, irrigation scheme, masonary since then. He says he murdered his first wife and one and a half year old child in September last year and got another wife in November last year. She is currently expectant. He denied use of any substances. In his forensic history, he says he was arrested last year due to assaulting his wife whereby he cut her on the leg but was released on presidential pardon after 4 months. He says his personality is sociable.Examination I found a well-kempt young man with relaxed pasture who was calm and cooperative. His speech was of normal rate, tone and volume. In his thought content he had bizarre delusions that he is a devil worshipper. In his perception, he had auditory and visual hallucinations of a lady who he sees and instructs him to kill people. He was well oriented in time, place and person. His memory abstract thinking. Judgment, attention and concentration was intact. He had no insights into his condition.ConclusionThe above named is exhibiting symptoms of mental illness. My impression is schizophrenia with a differential diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. His mental status is not stable and he requires admission for further observation and possible treatment. He is therefore not fit to plead. 27.I have reproduced these reports from the psychiatrist, here – to demonstrate that there is no evidence on record that the convict was treated from any psychiatric illness. Despite the court orders and directions there was no evidence that for the period the accused was in custody he suffered from any mental illness and was treated for the same. It appears to me that the impression that the psychiatrist had on 26/1/2022, appears to have been just that, an impression. This is because the report on 23/11/2022 presents a person who is not mentally ill – who is has not gone through any treatment of any kind or exhibited any mental illness. 28.The orders made for treatment – there is no record of treatment – no treatment records from the hospital were produced by the accused. 29.What is of concern is what the accused told the psychiatrist on 26/1/2022 , was that evidence that the accused was mentally ill at the time offence was committed? 30.There was no history of mental illness, prior to this day or during the trial or after this. Could that have been a story to create the impression of mental illness? The subsequent reports rule out any mental illness at the time the offence was committed. 31.Section 11 of Penal Code provides had everyone is presumed to be of sound mind until the contrary is proved. Section 12 provided for the defence of insanity. That a person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is through any disease affecting his mind incapable of understanding what he is doing, or of knowing that he ought not to do the act or make the omission; but a person may be criminally responsible for an act or omission, although his mind is affected by disease, if such disease does not in fact produce upon his mind one or other of the effects above mentioned in reference to that act or omission. 32.Why have I have anxiously considered the record? – Because other than the guide by Leonard Mwangemi Munyasia that a trial court is obligated to consider all the surrounding circumstances, I am alive to the fact that mental illness is real and it may not be visible until the psychiatrist confirms the same. 33.The law recognises the defence of insanity. This was never raised during the trial. The defence now wants the court to rely on what happened before the trial, a fact that ought to have been tested during the trial. Section 11 and 12 of the Penal Code places the burden on the accused person. The impression the psychiatrist had was not confirmed – infact it was disapproved – that the accused did not have any mental illness. Hence without any supporting evidence of mental illness, the case of Leonard Mwangemi Munyasia is distinguishable. 34.There is no evidence before me to lead me to an opinion that at the commission of the offence the accused had a mental illness – no evidence immediately before the commissioner of the offence, or contemporaneous conduct of the accused on medical history. The accused could have produced his treatment documents if any – or any prescriptions for medication – there is nothing. 35.In the circumstances I can only draw the conclusion that the court’s directions were based on the inconclusive report – which turned out not to be conclusive. 36.On this 1st issue, I find that the accused has not established mental illness to warrant its consideration as part of the sentence. 37.On the 2nd issue – the accused killed the deceased. He then proceeded to bury her body in a shallow grave to conceal the offence. From the record the offence was accompanied by kidnapping, extortion of money from the family – and concealment of the body. The deceased had defence injuries showing that there was a struggle – and other than strangulation, she sustained blunt chest injury, that broke her 3rd rib, leading to laceration of the lung (right) and hemothorax. 38.I have considered the pre-sentence report – no family member was available for interview, though the accused is one of 9 siblings. He told the probation & aftercare services officer that since his arrest his family cut off ties. The report does not support a not custodial sentence. 39.the Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 provide that the court will consider at 5.2.4 Aggravating Factors in Murder Cases: These include;i.A significant degree of planning or premeditation. ii. The mental or physical suffering inflicted upon the victim before death. Factors such as the type of weapon used, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment prior to death will be relevant. iii. The use of duress or threats to enable the offence to take place, iv. The vulnerability of the victim e.g., due to age or disability. v. The fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty. vi. Multiple victims or multiple perpetrators. vii. Where the offence involved an abuse of trust. The relationship between the victim and the accused should be carefully considered. viii. Offence was motivated by, or there was demonstrated hostility to the victim based on his or her race, gender, sex, sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation), pregnancy, marital status (so called ‘honour killings’ for example), health status (e.g., murder occurred because of the HIV status of the victim, or albinism), ethnicity, culture, dress, language, birth, or religious orientation (or presumed religious orientation). ix. A history of assaults, threats, or coercion upon the same victim. x. Absence of self-defence or provocation. xi. The offence involved deliberate drugging or stupefying of the victim. xii. Proven abduction or kidnapping of the victim before the murder was committed. xiii. Where a demand for ransom was made, signifying a financial motive. xiv. Concealing, destroying, or dismembering the body. 40.At para 5.2.5 the Mitigating features relating to murder might include: i. Lack of premeditation. ii. The offender suffered from a mental disorder or mental disability which lowered his degree of blame. iii. In a case of joint enterprise, the role the offender played may be lower than his co-accused. For example, in the resentencing of the Applicants in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & 6 others v Director of Public Prosecution [2019] eKLR the Judge categorised the offenders into four categories based on their culpability. The first category involved the architects of an offence e.g., those who financed the killing, the second category involves offenders who ensnared the deceased into his death, the third category is the henchmen, those who carried out the brutal killing and the fourth category involves offenders involved in the cover up of the offence by attempting to silence witnesses. The Judge sentenced the third category with the highest term of imprisonment and graduated the term down for the other categories. iv. That the offender was provoked. v. That the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence. vi. The age of the offender. 41.I acknowledge counsel’s fight for this accused person but in his case the aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigating factors. 42.I have taken into account the period the accused has spent in custody. The accused person deserves the maximum sentence. He is sentenced to 35 years imprisonment 43.Right of appeal 14 days. SENTENCE RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KABARNET THIS 30TH JUNE 2026.MUMBUA T. MATHEKAJUDGECourt Assistant – Momanyi/GladysAccused – presentMs. Omari for stateMs. Barasah for the accused