https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9086

Republic v Wasonga alias “Raila (Criminal Case E016 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9086 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9086 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Siaya Criminal Case E016 of 2024 DK Kemei, J June 29, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Alfred Amollo Wasonga Alias “Raila Accused Sentence 1.The accused herein Alfred Amollo Wasonga Alias “Raila’’ had been charged with an offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on 29th day of February, 2024 at about 0100 hours in Wambasa village, Ndori Sub Location, South Gem Location, Gem Wagai Sub County within Siaya County murdered one Sijenyi Alias ‘’Koth’’. Vide the plea agreement entered into by the parties herein, the charge of murder was substituted with one of manslaughter with the particulars being that on 29th February 2024 at about 0100 hours in Wambasa village, Ndori Sub location, South Gem Location, Gem Wagai Sub County within Siaya County killed one Sijenyi Alias ‘’Koth.’’ The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and was duly convicted thereby. 2.Sentencing hearing commenced on 15th June, 2026. Mr. Were for the accused submitted interalia: that the accused is a first offender and aged 27 years and single; that the accused is remorseful for the offence and the action which led to the incident; that he an hardworking man and disciplined with good behaviour as he is held in high regard within the community; that the accused has learnt his lessons and is willing to be reintegrated back to society; that a non-custodial sentence be imposed as the accused seeks to reconcile with the family of the victim. 3.Mr Soita for the prosecution submitted inter alia; that the circumstances leading to the death and the autopsy report requires that justice be served; that the state does not oppose a lenient sentence but that the scales of justice should be balanced with a short custodial period and then probationary period. 4.This court called for a pre-sentence report by the Probation department. The same were duly availed, and it is dated 15/6/2026. The summary of the report is inter alia; that the accused had been alerted by his dogs who were barking at around 1.00 am and on coming out, he came face to face with the deceased and that a confrontation ensued and that he managed to repel him with the help of two neighbours; that the accused later in the night rushed to report to the village elder and was shocked to discover the intruder had died; that the accused regrets the incident as he had only responded to an intrusion by a stranger and that he had no ill intention to the deceased who was a stranger to him; that the accused expresses genuine remorse over the death of the deceased as he never intended to cause harm to him or cause distress to his family; that the accused expresses willingness to accept responsibility for his actions and seeks for reconciliation and peaceful coexistence within the community; that the family of the victim have been put into some emotional, psychological and financial hardship; that the deceased had two wives and five children and thus the family has lost a breadwinner; that the family of the deceased are opposed to the release of the accused to the community and that they claim that the family of the accused has not reached out to them for any reconciliation even they do not hold any grudge against them except the accused himself; that the deceased’s family seek for custodial sentence; that the community have no problem with the accused and are surprised as to how the deceased who hailed from a far off area ended up in Wambasa area; that the community is supportive of the accused and they believe that he can live harmoniously in the community and therefore have no objection to a no-custodial sentence; that the probation officer is of the view that the accused does not present a high risk to public safety as he did not have a history of criminal behaviour; that it was the view of the probation department that the accused is suitable to be placed on probation for a period of three years to facilitate structured guidance and anger management interventions. 5.I have given due consideration to the oral submissions and the pre-sentence report. It is noted that the accused has been convicted of manslaughter and that under section 205 of the Penal Code, he stands to serve a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However, the maximum sentence is usually reserved for the worst form of offenders. Looking at the circumstances of the case, iam of the view that the accused who is a first offender, does not merit a sentence of life imprisonment. The circumstances are that the accused had attacked the deceased who had intruded into his compound in the dead of the night, and that after repulsing him from his compound, he went to alert the village elder and that the body of the deceased was found the following morning along the public road of access. The accused has maintained that he was repelling an intruder from his compound. However, the evidence of the witnesses who had testified earlier is that the accused was against anyone intervening as he continued to assault the deceased. I find that had the accused opted to engage the neighbours in tackling the intruder and handing him over to the authorities, the deceased could be alive today. The accused, therefore, took the law into his hands. His action was unwarranted in the circumstances. 6.It noted that the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased are tragic in that he died a very violent death. The deceased, who was aged around 60 years was subjected to several panga cuts on his body at the hands of the accused herein who claims to have been repelling an intruder from his compound. The pathologist Dr Daniel Ochieng Otieno (PW5) noted deep cut wounds on the upper arm and superficial cut wounds on the arm. That there was fracture of the 7th right rib. That there was subdural hematoma on the head. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was severe traumatic brain injury with acute subdural hematoma secondary to assault. He produced the autopsy report dated 4/3/2024 as Exhibit One. I find that the said injuries could not give the deceased a chance to survive. 7.As regards the sentence to be imposed, the Court of Appeal in the case of Charo Ngumbao Gugudu Vs. R [2011] eKLR held as follows:“Further, the law is that sentence imposed on an accused person must be commensurate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender and that it is not proper exercise for the court to fail to look at the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety before settling for any given sentence. See Ambani Vs. R [1990] KLR” 8.According to the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines (2023), sentencing of offenders should take into account the following objectives:a)Retribution - To punish the offender for their criminal conduct in a just manner.b)Deterrence - To deter the offender from committing a similar or any other offence in future as well as to discourage the public from committing offences.c)Rehabilitation - To enable the offender to reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person.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.e)Community protection - To protect the community by removing the offender from the community thus avoiding the further perpetuation of the offender’s criminal acts.f)Denunciation - To clearly communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.g)Reconciliation - To mend the relationship between the offender, the victim and the community.h)Reintegration - To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society. 9.Looking at the circumstances of the offence as well as the pre-sentence report and the mitigation of the defence and prosecution, it is clear that the family of the accused has not made any attempt at reconciliation with the family of the deceased. The accused has maintained that he was repelling an intruder from his compound. However, the evidence of the witnesses who had testified earlier is that the accused was against anyone intervening as he continued to assault the deceased. I find that had the accused opted to engage the neighbours in tackling the intruder and handing him over to the authorities, the deceased could be alive today. The accused, therefore, took the law into his hands. His action was unwarranted in the circumstances. This was a rather brutal and unwarranted act on the part of the accused herein. 10.The pre-sentence report appears to favour a non-custodial sentence. However, going by the manner in which the accused conducted himself over the incident leaves no doubt that he has some anger related issues. It is instructive that he could not allow the neighbours to intervene and he kept on threatening them should they intervene. Iam of the considered view that the accused herein requires a comprehensive custodial rehabilitation in order to enable him to undergo the requisite rehabilitation so as to work on his anger-related issues before being released back to the society. 11.It is noted that the accused herein had been in custody throughout the trial and therefore provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code must apply and that the sentence to be imposed should commence from the date of arrest namely 29/2/2024. Iam of the view that a sentence of five (5) years’ imprisonment and, upon completion, to serve under probation for three years is appropriate in the circumstances. 12.In view of the foregoing observations, i order the accused herein Alfred Amollo Wasonga Alias “Raila’’ to serve a custodial sentence of five (5) years imprisonment, which shall commence from the date of arrest, namely 29/2/2024, and upon completion to serve under probation for a period of three years. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA, THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of:Alfred Amollo Wasonga alia ‘’Raila’’..........................Accused.Mr Were....................................................................for AccusedM/s Nakholi...............................................................for ProsecutionM/s Maurine............................................................Court Assistant.