Republic v Wahome (Criminal Case E020 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8936 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Sentence)

Republic v Wahome (Criminal Case E020 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8936 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8936 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyahururu Criminal Case E020 of 2021 LN Mutende, J June 22, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Bernard Wambugu Wahome Accused Sentence 1.Bernard Wambugu Wahome, was found guilty and convicted for the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Cap 63 Laws of Kenya). 2.The secondary victims in the matter participated in trial as mandated by the Constitution and Statute (See Article 50(9) of the Constitution; and, Section 9 of the Victim Protection Act). 3.To ensure consideration of the victims’ input, the court called for a pre-sentence report in an endeavor to get views of the victims as well as that of the Accused and the Community at large. 4.The offender is stated to be 46 years old. Following his mother’s demise, he relied on his paternal grandmother for essential resources for survival as his father was not very supportive. He cohabited with the deceased who had six (6) children but only two (2) were his biological ones. 5.The State failed to get a report from the Criminal Registry Office (CRO) in his regard but the pre-sentence report indicates that the Accused was convicted and sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment for the offence of Being in possession of Government Trophies, in 2013; then in 2020 he was arrested for assaulting the deceased but she forgave him and she withdrew the complaint from court. However, no citation was given for the two (2) cases. 6.The Accused who lived with the deceased at the time of the incident is stated to have had a history of consumption of alcohol, khat as well as smoking bhang. 7.For the secondary victims, the last two have been taken to a home for the vulnerable while the rest are supported by their maternal relatives (Aunts). The heinous act has resulted into them being separated. They are bitter and may be tempted to retaliate if the Accused is released. 8.The community through the Assistant Chief did not know him very well as he does not hail from the area. He was a casual labourer in the horticultural sector within the area. 9.It is the recommendation of the Probation Officer that the Accused presents criminogenic factors including substance abuse, prior criminal conduct, poor behavioral history, and lack of family support for supervision and reintegration. A custodial sentence for rehabilitation focused intervention was recommended where he can be counselled and treated with a view of reducing the likelihood of re-offending. 10.Pursuant to Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (Cap. 75) of the Laws of Kenya, the court called for evidence in mitigation. Learned defence counsel Mr. Ojare submits that the Accused is a first offender with no previous records. That he is remorseful, he has undergone a lengthy incarceration which has afforded him the opportunity to reflect on his conduct. 11.Further, that the Accused attempted to save court’s time by praying for plea bargain. Seeking leniency, he urged the court to consider the prospect of being rehabilitated. 12.On its part the prosecution through learned prosecution counsel Ms. Mumbe opted to rely on the pre-sentence report. 13.I have considered the arguments in litigation. The statutory punishment for the offence of murder is stated in Section 204 of the Penal Code which provides thus.Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death. 14.But, following the decision of Muruatetu & Another v Republic and 6 Others [2017] eklr. The trial court has discretion to mete a sentence other than death for the offence of murder, but, death sentence remains lawful. 15.The nucleus principle of sentencing is provided in Clause 1.2 of the Judiciary Sentencing Guidelines Policy (2025) which states as follows;1.2Principles Underpinning The Sentencing Process1.2.1Proportionality: The sentence meted out must be proportionate to the offending behaviour meaning it must not be more or less than is merited in view of the gravity of the offence. Proportionality of the sentence to the offending behaviour is weighted in view of the actual, foreseeable, and intended impact of the offence as well as the responsibility of the offender.1.2.2Equality/Uniformity/Parity/Consistency/Impartiality: The same sentences should be imposed for same offences committed by offenders in similar circumstances.1.2.3Accountability and Transparency: The reasoning behind the determination of sentence should be clearly set out and in accordance with the law and the sentencing principles laid out in these guidelines.1.2.4Inclusiveness: Both the offender and the victim should participate in and inform the sentencing process.1.2.5Totality of the Sentence: The sentence passed for offenders convicted for multiple counts must be just and proportionate, taking into account the offending behaviour as a whole. 16.The objective of sentencing includes deterrence, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation. In meting out punishment the court should endeavor to ensure that the offender does not commit a similar offence against and the public or community should be deterred from committing a similar offence or just being in conflict with the law. It may be necessary for the offender to be removed from the community to avoid repeating of such an offence. 17.Further, the punishment must be proportionate to the offence committed. The gravity of the offence must not be overlooked. The impact of the offence as well as the responsibility of the Accused must be considered. (Also see the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, Policy Guidelines (2023). 18.In Muruatetu and Another v Republic & 4 Others [2021] KESC 31 (KLR) the Supreme Court gave directions of what to consider when sentencing which includes the commission of the offence in response to gender based violence, character of the offender, whether he is a first offender and the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation. 19.Although sentencing is a matter of discretion, the court would consider comparable decisions. In Kamau v Republic [2023] KECA 950 (KLR) where the Accused stabbed the deceased his girlfriend to death and even sent his sister to go and confirm whether she was dead was sentenced to death. On appeal, the court stated that;“…where circumstances justify to keep away an accused person from the society, the Court is at liberty to pass any sentence as provided in the law.” 20.This is a case where the Accused inflicted a deep cut wound on the neck of the deceased. This was extreme brutality and severe physical as well as domestic violence. This is an individual who abused the intimate relationship he had with the mother of his children. The Probation Officer found him to be a person with a likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior, this means that he is not truly remorseful. 21.The Accused admitted having inflicted the cut wound on the neck using a panga, and lethal weapon which was a highly aggravating factor. 22.The children of the deceased have been rendered destitute. They experienced trauma, two (2) of them ending up in a home for vulnerable children. The impact on them is serious as they have suffered trauma beyond grief. Their lives will be disrupted forever. All these call for a deterrent sentence. 23.In the upshot, I do sentence the Accused to suffer death as provided in law. 24.Right of appeal explained. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.……………………L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE