Amos Kibet Makan v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal cut a 25-year manslaughter sentence to time served, ruling judges must weigh an offender's personal circumstances, not just the crime.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment was excessive in light of the circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors presented
- 2.Whether the trial court applied correct sentencing principles
Key legal issues
#Whether the 25-year sentence for manslaughter was manifestly excessive
Yes; the trial court failed to weigh the appellant's mitigation (first offender, aged 27, remorseful, orphan) and the provocation finding, and did not justify the lengthy term
The trial court correctly found provocation and convicted of manslaughter, but then imposed a lengthy custodial sentence without demonstrably weighing the appellant's personal circumstances. Comparable authorities involved materially lower sentences. The Court held sentencing must reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the offender's individual circumstances, and that over eight years already served sufficiently met the punitive and rehabilitative objectives.
Scope of appellate intervention on sentence alone
The Court may interfere where the sentencing court erred in principle or the sentence is manifestly excessive, and may substitute an appropriate sentence
Citing Bonaya Tutu Ipu and John Onyango Obala, the Court reaffirmed that failure to consider mitigating factors such as age, remorse and circumstances of the offence renders a sentence legally unsound, and that it is within the appellate court's mandate to correct such failures and substitute a more appropriate sentence.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal confined to sentence, the Court assesses whether the trial court applied correct sentencing principles and whether the sentence was lawful, proportionate and just
- A sentencing court must weigh the offender's personal circumstances, including mitigation, alongside the gravity of the offence; failure to do so is an error in principle
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal on sentence allowed
- 2.Sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment set aside
- 3.Substituted with a sentence equivalent to the term already served
- 4.Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Bungoma
- HCCRC No. 2 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence under the Criminal Procedure Code; appeal ultimately confined to sentence
Relief refused
#Appeal against conviction
Abandoned by the appellant at the plenary hearing
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the Court is enjoined to assess whether the trial court applied correct sentencing principles and whether the sentence imposed was lawful, proportionate, and just in the circumstances
sentencing must reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s individual circumstances
the trial court erred in principle by failing to adequately consider the mitigating circumstances and the context of the offence. The sentence of twenty-five years was manifestly excessive
We therefore allow the appeal on sentence, set aside the sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment, and substitute it with a sentence equivalent to the term already served. The appellant shall therefore be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amos Kibet Makan v Republic", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal E124 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2273/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.