https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8080

State v Siwamwai (Criminal Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8080 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8080 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kapenguria Criminal Case E002 of 2026 RPV Wendoh, J June 10, 2026 Between State Prosecutor and Emmanuel Ywalareng Siwamwai Accused Sentence 1.Emmanuel Ywalereng Siwamwai was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.After a plea bargain, the charge was substituted with one of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code, dated 19/5/2026. 3.The particulars of the charge are that on 2/1/2026 at Timoi Village, Chepkobegh Sub-Location, within West Pokot County, unlawfully killed Moses Siwanyang.The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter is now before me for sentence. 4.Sentencing is essentially an exercise of the court’s discretion. However, the court must be guided by the Constitution, relevant laws on sentencing and the 2016 Judiciary of Kenya sentencing Policy Guidelines. Despite the importance of the guidelines, sentencing remains an exercise of Judicial discretion as was expressed by the Supreme court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another -V- Republic (2017) eKLR when the court said at paragraph “(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.At page 15 Paragraph 4.1, The Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines provides for what the court should consider in sentencing as follows;i.Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner;ii.Deterrence; to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences;iii.Rehabilitation; to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person;iv.Restorative justice; to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages;v.Community Protection; to police the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation; to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.vii.Reconciliation; to mend the relationship between the offender the victim and the communityviii.Reintegration; To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society. 6.In Muruatetu’s Case, the Supreme court also added its voice to some of the mitigating factors to be considered during sentencing, as follows: -1.Age of the offender;2.Being a first offender;3.Whether the offender pleaded guilty;4.Character and record of the offender;5.Commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence;6.Remorsefulness of the offender;7.The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender;8.Any other factor that the court considers relevant. 7.In this case, the court asked the Probation Officer to make enquiries and prepare a presentence report to guide the court in sentencing and the court will take into account some of the findings. 8.The Prosecution did not have Accused’s previous records and he was therefore treated as a first offender. 9.In mitigation, Mr. Lokeer, Counsel for the Accused urged the court to consider that the accused pleaded guilty to the charge and did not waste the court’s time; that the accused presented himself to the police station and that the deceased and Accused’s families have undertaken ‘Lapai’, the Pokot traditional practice of compensation of the deceased’s family. He urged the court to be lenient and relied on the case of Abdi Abdulali -V- Republic (2012) eKLR where the deceased’s family was paid camels and the court released the accused who had served two (2) years in remand. 10.This court takes into account all the above mitigating factors; that Accused is a first offender, he pleaded guilty to the charge and saved the court’s precious time. Accused is a young man with a young family of which he is the sole bread winner but it is also remembered that he took away a life whose family has suffered deep loss and the love of a husband, father, son and brother. 11.The court also takes into account the presentence report in which the accused is reported to have been a person of good character save for consumption of alcohol which contributed to his committing the offence. The court also considers that ‘Lapai’ was undertaken thus the deceased’s family has got some form of compensation. However, the court has to give a deterrent sentence to warn would be offenders that they will not kill and walk away easily. Secondly, the offence was committed recently and despite the compensation, there is need for healing of emotions and rehabilitation of the offender. 12.Taking all the above into mind, this court sentences accused to Seven (7) years imprisonment. The sentence will commence on 29/1/2026 when accused was arraigned in court. SENTENCE DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAPENGURIA THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.R. WENDOHJUDGEIn the Presence of:-Prosecution Counsel – Ms. Koech.Accused – presentMr. Chebet holding brief for Mr. Lokeer for accused.Hellen- Court Assistants