Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

kehc-2020-04593

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 94 OF 2017 (FORMERLY MACHAKOS HCCRC 19 OF 2016) REPUBLIC................................................................................PROSECUTION -VERSUSSHADRACK KYALO NDAMBUKI..................................................ACCUSED RULING ON SENTENCE 1. Shadrack Kyalo Ndambuki the accused herein was initially charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. He was finally found guilty and convicted of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. 2. The court called for a pre-sentencing report which has been filed. It is not a favorable report. Both the family and community have explained the need for rehabilitation of the accused. Prior to his arrest he was involved heavily in drug abuse, and he used to steal. He has a previous conviction for theft. 3. Basically, reports by the administration including the area chief, OCS Mavoko and Kavumbu police post on the accused reveal a person with a violent character. He needs rehabilitation. 4. The deceased was the accused’s elder brother whom he brutally killed. It is however acknowledged that he was drunk at the time. 5. The accused was first arraigned in court on 18th April 2016. He has therefore been in prison custody for four (4) years and two (2) months. 6. I have therefore considered the circumstances of the case, the period spent in custody and the pre-sentencing report. The accused is hereby sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment. Orders accordingly. Delivered, signed & dated this 26th day of June 2020, in open court at Makueni. H. I. Ong’udi Judge

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.