[2024] KEHC 6058 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 6058 (KLR)

The court found that, despite the accused's mitigation and lack of previous criminal records, the offence was a cold-blooded murder arising from a personal dispute. The accused had alternatives to violence but chose to commit murder. The community's objection to a non-custodial sentence and the need for deterrence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 6058 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic of Kenya; Defendant: Steve Moses Okoth; Defendant: Nahashon Ouma Okoth
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Case E014 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing
Outcome
Both accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment each, sentences to run from 19/4/2022. Right of appeal explained. Defence counsel discharged and to be paid pro bono fees.
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Mitigation, Murder, Provocation, Custodial Sentence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Mitigation Murder Provocation Custodial Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic of Kenya

Applicant

Steve Moses Okoth

Defendant

Nahashon Ouma Okoth

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Sentencing

  1. 1 Whether the accused persons should be given a custodial or non-custodial sentence for the offence of murder.
  2. 2 Whether the mitigation and circumstances justify a lesser sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the accused's mitigation and lack of previous criminal records, the offence was a cold-blooded murder arising from a personal dispute. The accused had alternatives to violence but chose to commit murder. The community's objection to a non-custodial sentence and the need for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors. Consequently, a custodial sentence of 15 years imprisonment for each accused was deemed appropriate, with the sentence running from the date of first arraignment due to time spent in remand.

Court Disposition

Both accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment each, sentences to run from 19/4/2022. Right of appeal explained. Defence counsel discharged and to be paid pro bono fees.

Orders

  • Each accused to serve 15 years imprisonment.
  • Sentence to run from 19/4/2022, the date of first arraignment.