https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6691

Republic v Wanjala (Criminal Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 6691 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6691 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Criminal Case E005 of 2026 AK Ndung'u, J May 18, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Solomon Wanjala Accused Ruling 1.Solomon Wanjala pleaded guilty to a charge of Manslaughter following a successful plea bargain process culminating in a Plea Agreement dated 14th May 2026. The Particulars of the charge are that on the 30th January, 2006 at around 0400hrs at Huruma Air Market, Turbo Sub County within Uasin Gishu County in the Republic of Kenya unlawfully caused the death of Richard Sambu Lilan. 2.The matter is before court for sentencing. 3.Ms. Kirenge informed the court that she had no previous criminal record on the Accused. 4.M/s Hamba counsel for the Accused in mitigation on behalf of the accused stated that the convict is 41 years and has 2 children a boy aged 15 and a girl aged 13 years of age. They were born out of wedlock and they stay with the mother. 5.That the accused is the sole bread winner and takes care of his father who is 73 years old. 6.The accused was arrested on 30.1.2026. He has been in custody and of good behavior. 7.That at the material time, the accused was acting in self defence thus a non-custodial sentence is sought. 8.That if the Accused was to be imprisoned, many lives will be shattered. That he is a first offender with no record. Counsel prayed for leniency to enable the Accused continue with his life. 9.The court has a wide discretion on the question of sentence. However, the said discretion cannot be used by the Court of law in a fanciful and whimsical manner. Every case has to be decided on the consideration of its circumstances including the gravity of offence, victim impact, the need to deter crime and the rehabilitation of an offender among others. The discretion does not open a carte blanche for a whimsical decision on the appropriate sentence. In The Nature of the Judicial Process – Yale University Press 1921 Ed page 144 Benjamin N. Cardozo puts it in the following words;“The judge even where he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to drawn his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to ‘the primordial necessity of order in the social life’. . .” 10.The question before the court is what would constitute an adequate, appropriate and just sentence in the circumstances of this case. As a useful guide, I draw guidance from the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State Of Madhya Pradesh v Mehtaab Cr. Appeal No. 290 OF 2015, where the court held:“It is the duty of the court to award just sentence to a convict against whom charge is proved. While every mitigating or aggravating circumstances may be given due weight, mechanical reduction of sentence to the period already undergone cannot be appreciated. Sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and society. It is also the duty of the court to duly consider the aspect of rehabilitating the victim.” 11.The objectives of sentencing as stated in paragraph 4.1 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines can be summarized as follows:a.To prevent the occurrence of crime;b.To punish the transgressor and the criminal;c.To rehabilitate the transgressor and the criminal;To compensate the victim;d.To deter the offender from committing any criminal acts in the future as well as other people from committing similar offences ande.To protect the community condemnation of the convict. 12.I have carefully considered the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the offence. I take note that the Accused has demonstrated remorse seeking a plea bargain thus admitting his offence and saving judicial time. 13.I have in addition considered the mitigation put forth by the accused through his advocate and the State’s submission on sentence. 14.In the circumstances of this case, am persuaded that the Accused deserves a sentence that in addition to acting as a deterrent also gives him a chance to reshape his life after the sentence. 15.The Accused is to serve 7 years imprisonment. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY 2026A.K. NDUNG’UJUDGE