https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11594

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. 23 OF 2019** **REPUBLIC………………………………….……..PROSECUTION** **V E R S U S** **JULIUS KIPKIRUI TOWETT …………….…....……ACCUSED** **JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE** 1. The Accused, **JULIUS KIPKIRUI TOWETT** 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 **4th day of February, 2008** at Kapsimotwa in Bomet District within Rift Valley Province, murdered **SELINA CHEPNGENO TOWETT**. 2. The Accused took plea on **20th day of February, 2008** and pleaded not guilty. 3. A duly executed Plea Bargaining Agreement dated **22nd April, 2026** 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 22nd 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 **(22nd 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 Kipsigis 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 4th February, 2008, at about 8.00a.m., at Kapsimotwo Village in Bomet Central, the deceased SELINA CHEROTICH had prepared breakfast for her children Benard Kiplangat Bett and Julius Kipkirui Bett. After serving the tea Benard Kiplangat Bett went to the shamba leaving behind his mother and Julius Kipkurui Bett – the Accused.** **After a short while, Benard Kiplangat Bett heard screams coming from their house where he had left the two. He ran back and found a crowd had gathered and his mother was lying down covered with banana leaves and bleeding profusely. The Accused had also escaped. The deceased had cut wounds on the shoulders, hands, thighs, cheeks and throat. A panga that was used by the Accused was recovered about 200 metres from the house which had blood stains. The deceased was ferried by Police to Longisa Hospital.** **The post mortem was conducted and it revealed that the deceased died from cardio-respiratory arrest arising from head injury inflicted through a sharp object likely a machete.** **The Accused was arrested and charged with the offence of murder but has now agreed to plead guilty to a lesser offence of Manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.** 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 family reported that they noticed the Accused change of behavior and withdrawal from daily activities like farming and animal keeping which he normally did whenever he is at home as part of his personal responsibility. That after sometime he started feeling detached from self, having elevated mood, inappropriate emotional responses, loss of interest in any activity especially farming which was his main occupation. The family further stated that the Accused constantly reported hearing unknown voices with combination of hallucination and extremely disordered thinking. That the Accused started seeing or hearing things that do not exist and started excessive movement within home and shopping centre. The report established that on the material date of the offence, the Accused confronted the deceased with unpreceded anger, picked a panga and cut the deceased (his mother) several times. The deceased succumbed to the inflicted injuries. The Accused was subsequently arrested and arraigned in Court. 2. The Community reported that many vices happening in the community were attributed to alcohol, drug and substance abuse and mental illness. They do wish that more emphasis and efforts be focused to the perpetrators as it degrades the social fabric. The community prayed for more sensitization on assisting people with mental problems. They were not opposed to his release on non-custodial sentence. **Victim Impact Statement:** 1. The Victim’s family indicated that they had come to terms with the loss and have forgiven the Accused since they understand his mental state. They are willing to receive the Accused back and ready to assist him by providing necessary medication and an enabling environment for change, resettlement and reintegration as well as monitoring his psychological wellbeing. They advocate 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 Victim Family Statement. The Victim’s family, Community and the Probation Officer recommend a non-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. The Court also appreciates the reconciliation efforts within the family. 10. In the end having considered the above issues and the circumstances of the case generally the Accused is sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment. The sentence shall run as from 20/2/2008 being the date of plea taking. **Judgement delivered, dated and signed this 28th day of July, 2026.** **........................................** **HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR** **JUDGE** **Judgement delivered in the presence of;** **Siele/Susan – Court Assistants** **Mwangangi for the State** **Accused**