[2025] KEHC 2607 (KLR)
The court found that, despite several mitigating factors—including the accused's remorse, lack of previous criminal record, reconciliation efforts, and time spent in remand custody—the gravity of the offence, namely a vicious assault resulting in the death of the accused's wife, warranted a custodial sentence for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 2607 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Josephat Kipkoech Towett
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 13 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentence
- Outcome
- convicted and sentenced
- Judges
- JM Nang'ea
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Plea Bargain, Sentencing Guidelines, Mitigation, Remand Custody, 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
Josephat Kipkoech Towett
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the circumstances of the offence and mitigation justify a custodial or non-custodial sentence for manslaughter.
- 2 Whether the period spent in remand custody should be discounted from the final sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, despite several mitigating factors—including the accused's remorse, lack of previous criminal record, reconciliation efforts, and time spent in remand custody—the gravity of the offence, namely a vicious assault resulting in the death of the accused's wife, warranted a custodial sentence for deterrence. The court was guided by the Sentencing Policy Guidelines and the need to balance the interests of justice, the wishes of the deceased's family, and the recommendations of the probation officer. The period spent in remand custody was discounted from the total sentence in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The final sentence imposed was...
Court Disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to twelve (12) years imprisonment for manslaughter, with the period spent in remand custody to be discounted from the sentence.
- Cash bail to be refunded to the depositor.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Republic v Towett (Criminal Case 13 of 2020) [2025] KEHC 2607 (KLR) (11 March 2025) (Sentence)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 2607 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Case 13 of 2020
JM Nang'ea, J
March 11, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Josephat Kipkoech Towett
Accused
Sentence
1. The accused had been arraigned in court charged with the capital offence of Murder Contrary to Section 2023 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence state that on 16th December, 2018 at Sururu Location, Njoro Sub County, in Nakuru County, jointly with another not before court, he murdered Fancy Chepkemoi Birir (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The accused pleaded “not guilty” to the charge.
2. Subsequently, the charge was reduced to Manslaughter Contrary to Section 205 of the Penal Code following plea bargain between the prosecution and the accused. The later pleaded guilty of the lesser offence and was accordingly convicted.
3. The defence Counsel (Mr. Ooga) made mitigation submissions. He urged the court to take into account that the offender agreed to enter into plea bargain; the fact that the deceased was the offender’s wife with who he had children who are dependent on him; the youthful age of the accused at thirty five (35) and that he is remorseful and he is reconciling with the deceased’s family.
4. The court is further told that the convict was been in remand custody for two (2) years before his release on bond which Mr. Ooga opines to be sufficient punishment. It is submitted that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances so that the offender is counselled on anger management.
5. Ms Sang, the Prosecution Counsel, informed, the court that the convict has no previous criminal records. Counsel agrees that he is remorseful and credits him for the Plea Agreement. Nevertheless, Ms Sang notes that the attack on the deceased was brutal and caused serious psychological effects on her relatives. Counsel thinks that a custodial sentence is warranted in the circumstances.
6. I have considered Counsel Submissions and the Probation Officer’s Report dated 21st January 2025. It is confirmed that reconciliation between the deceased’s and the convict’s families took place in the traditional manner. The deceased’s family is, however, said to be still bitter and wants the accused to be punished. The local administrators are said to favour a non-custodial sentence owing to the reconciliation between the concerned families.
7. For the stated reasons inter alia the Probation Offender appears to recommend a non-custodial sentence but considering the deceased’s relatives’ bitterness she leaves the matter “to the discretion of the court.”
8. I have taken into account all the relevant factors. The court is also guided by the operational Judiciary’s Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023. Despite the many extenuating factors, the offender perpetrated a vicious assault on the deceased who relied on him for protection. The court concurs with the prosecution that a custodial sentence is necessary for deterrence.
9. The upshot is that the offender is sentenced to twelve (12) years imprisonment for the offence. It is noted from the record that he was in custody between 29th February 2020 and 27th January 2021 a period of about one (1) year and after which he was released on cash bail pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code this period is discounted in computing the final sentence. Cash bail be refunded to the depositor.
10. It is ordered accordingly.
J. M. NANG’EA - JUDGERuling delivered this 11thday of March, 2025 in the presence of:Ms Sang for the DPPMr. Ooga advocate for the defenceAccused, presentCourt Assistant (Jeniffer)J. M. NANG’EA - JUDGEPage 2 of 2