REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 115 OF 2014 REPUBLIC..............................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS ERASTUS NGURA ODHIAMBO................ACCUSED RULING ON SENTENCE Erastus Ngura Odhiambo was tried by this court for the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. In a judgment delivered on 26 th July 2018 this court found him guilty of murder as charged and convicted him of the same. The matter was deferred until today 1st August 2018 to await the filing of a victim impact statement from the family of the deceased, previous records of the accused and to receive mitigation from the accused. The previous records were presented in court. They show that the accused does not have previous convictions. In his mitigation on behalf of the accused, Mr. Onyango told the court that the accused is a first offender as shown by the records placed before the court by the prosecution. He mitigated that the accused is very remorseful for the events that led to the death of the deceased and that the death of the deceased was not intended; that the accused acted out of provocation and is alive to the fact that a life has been lost and that there is nothing that can be done to bring that life back. He mitigated that the accused is a young man with a young family of four children aged between one month and 12 years who depend on him for their livelihood and that he takes care of the first two children of the first wife who has since abandoned them. Mr. Onyango mitigated that the accused is an IT expert and is a bright young man whose talents should be put to use and that the accused has behaved well during this trial by attending court obediently without fail. While invoking the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetue & another v. Republic and others in Supreme Court Petition No. 15 of 2015 as consolidated with Petition No. 16 of 2015, Mr. Onyango urged this court to consider that the mandatory nature of the death sentenced under Section 204 of the Penal Code was declared unconstitutional and give the accused a lenient sentence. Mr. Were appearing with Mr. Onyango for the accused in his brief submissions in mitigation on behalf of the accused emphasized that criminal justice system in Kenya is moving away from punitive to corrective nature of sentencing an offender. He urged the court to consider the accused’s young family and give the accused another chance in life. He urged the court to consider the circumstances of this case and grant a lenient sentence. The prosecution filed a victim impact statement. Under section 329C(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a court may receive and consider a victim impact statement at any time after convicting the offender but before sentencing him/her if it considers it appropriate to do so. I have read fully and considered the victim impact statement signed by the father of the deceased Mr. Jamleck Irungu. The statement was prepared by the family members and portrays the pain the family has undergone due to the painful death of the deceased.
page 1 of 2
Sentencing is a discretionary function of the trial court. In so sentencing the trial court must ensure that justice is served by striking a balance between the rights of the victim and those of the offender. Where a life has been lost as in this case it is true that it cannot be reversed and no matter the sentence meted out against the offender, whether death or a term served in jail, the pain the family of the deceased suffers after losing their loved one may not be mitigated. It is therefore not lost to this court that the family of the deceased will live with the pain of losing their daughter and sister no matter what sentence is meted out and this court sympathizes with the family. I have considered the mitigation fully. I have also considered the victim impact statement. I am alive to the circumstances of this case, specifically what happened on the night of 11 th December 2014. The deceased lost her life.The accused in my view could have acted differently despite the circumstances facing him that night. As stated in my judgment, the situation was explosive in that the accused was not happy after the deceased failed to join him that evening and his attempts to reach her were fruitless. The accused had a gun which was cocked. In that state he went looking for the deceased in her residence not once but severally. When he finally found her, he confronted her and what happened thereafter led to the circumstances giving rise to this trial and the consequent conviction. The penalty for murder is death by dint of Section 204 of the Penal Code. This sentence is valid under our law (see Article 26 (3) of the Constitution and Section 204 of the Penal Code). The decision of the Supreme Court in Petition No. 15 of 2015 declared the mandatory nature of Section 204 of the Penal Code unconstitutional. To my mind the mandatory nature of Section 204 of the Penal Code denied courts discretion in sentencing. It also denied the accused a fair trial in failing to allow the trial court discretion to receive and consider mitigation of an accused person before sentencing him. By declaring the mandatory nature of the death sentence unconstitutional and affirming that the death sentence is still valid under the law, to my mind means that the death sentence which is lawful under the Kenyan law remains the optimum sentence that a court can mete out in those offences like murder where the penalty is death. Trial courts can now sentence offenders facing capital offences to other lesser sentences other than death depending on the circumstances of each case. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the mitigation of the accused and the fact that he is remorseful and having considered the victim impact statement, it is my view that justice will be served if the accused is sentenced to serve a term in jail. Consequently, I hereby sentence the accused to serve a term of imprisonment for a period of 20 years. The law allows the accused to lodge his appeal within 14 days after today and I hereby inform him of this right. Orders shall issue accordingly. Delivered, signed and dated this 1st August 2018 in the presence of the accused, his counsels and the prosecution counsel. S. N. Mutuku Judge
page 2 of 2