https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6787

Republic v Wambua (Criminal Case E004 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 6787 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6787 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kajiado Criminal Case E004 of 2021 CW Meoli, J May 14, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Sammy Musembi Wambua Accused Sentence 1.Following a plea bargain agreement the Accused was convicted for offence of Manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 Penal Code. He was treated as a first offender and his counsel addressed the court in mitigation. 2.Sentencing is a vital part in the administration of justice. Thus, clause 4.6.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines (2023) provides inter alia that the sentencing process is an integral part of the trial and is therefore subject to the fair hearing constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court of India in the case of, Antony Pareira V State of Maharashtra (2 AIR 2012 SC 3802) held that that:“Sentencing is an important task in the matter of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentencе commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done." 3.These views were reiterated by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR where it was held that although the death sentence provided for murder in the Penal Code remained lawful, the mandatory nature of the sentence was unconstitutional as it tended to take away the discretion of the court in sentencing. Directing that re-sentence hearings be conducted for affected convicts and prisoners, the court listed some mitigating factors applicable in a re-hearing sentence for the conviction of a murder charge as follows;(a)age of the offender(b)being a first offender;(c)whether the offender pleaded guilty;(d)character and record of the offender;(e)commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence;(f)remorsefulness of the offender;(g)the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender;(h)any other factor that the Court considers relevant. 4.The Supreme Court was also quick to add the caveat that:“(72)We wish to make it very clear that these guidelines in no way replace judicial discretion. They are advisory and not mandatory. They are geared to promoting consistency and transparency in sentencing hearings. They are also aimed at promoting public understanding of the sentencing process". 5.Clause 1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines (2023), identifies the objectives of sentencing as: -“a)Retribution: To punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner. It serves to deter future crime. Victims and society might feel satisfied that the criminal justice system is functioning well when they learn that the offender has received an appropriate sentence for their crimes, which raises trust in the criminal justice systemb)Deterrence: To deter the offender from committing a similar offence or any other offence in future as well as to discourage the public from committing similar offences. Thus, it is divided into two components: individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence is to dissuade the perpetrator with the objective to inflict a punishment severe enough to deter the offender from engaging in criminal activity. The convict is expected to be discouraged from committing crimes in the future as a result of the sentence. The society is the target of general deterrence. Other people are deterred from committing those offences by the punishment meted out to those who commit them.c)Rehabilitation: To enable the offender reform from his criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person. It aims at changing the offenders and make it easier for them to reintegrate into society, through a variety of programs and treatments. It focusses on treating the root reasons of criminal behaviour, such as dependency, mental health conditions, or a lack of education. The objective is to give the offender the resources and assistance they need to upon release, become law-abiding citizens.d)Restorative justice: To address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages sustained by the victim or the community and to promote a sense of responsibility through the offender's contribution towards meeting those needs. Any harm done to the victim may be compelled to be repaired or restored by the court. The goal is to put the victim back in his pre-crime status or position. The goal of restoration is to make up for any harm the perpetrator has caused the victim.e)Restitution deters crime by financially penalizing the offender. It is somewhat like a civil lawsuit damages judgement and occurs when the court directs the offender to compensate the victim for any injury. Restitution may be required in cases of financial loss, property damage, and, in rare cases, mental suffering. It may also take the form of a fine to help defray part of the expense of the criminal investigation and punishment.f)Community protection: To protect the community by removing the offender from the community thus avoiding the further perpetuation of the offender's criminal acts.g)Denunciation: To clearly communicate the community's condemnation of the criminal conduct.h)Reconciliation: To mend the relationship between the offender, the victim and the community.i)Reintegration: To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society.j)Incapacitation's main purpose is to simply keep offenders outside of society so that everyone is safe from their potentially harmful actions. A person convicted of a crime should not be permitted to mingle with the general public if there is no assurance that they will not commit the same crime again. In certain civilizations, punishment takes the form of death sentence, or it may entail a sentence of life in jail without the chance of release.” 6.These guidelines apply to all criminal offences. The court has considered the mitigation raised on behalf of the Accused and the fact that he was treated as a first offender. However, the circumstances of the offence are cause for concern to the court; apparently unprovoked, the Accused doused the deceased visitor to the farm where the Accused worked with accelerant and set him ablaze before escaping and seeking a job at a neighboring farm. He returned a few days later to the scene of the attack which was the farm on which he was previously employed to collect his phone. He was then arrested. The deceased who sustained extensive burns succumbed while being treated at Kenyatta National Hospital. 7.The presentence report does not recommend a non-custodial sentence as the Accused lacks any social support system and appears far from acknowledging full responsibility for his crime claiming that he had taken alcohol on the date of the offence. Of equal concern, arising from that report, is the apparent lack of insight by the Accused which, coupled with a predilection to violence constitutes a risk to society. To protect society from potential harm while according the Accused an opportunity for reform, a custodial sentence appears appropriate. 8.The Accused is therefore sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment with effect from 4.03.2021 when he was arrested. DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAJIADO ON THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.C. MEOLIJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Kihumba for stateMs. Mageto for AccusedAccused: PresentC/A: Lepatei