Republic v Wambui (Criminal Case . 18’B’ of 2020) [2025] KEHC 19615 (KLR) (1 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19615 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MURANG'A CRIMINAL CASE . 18’B’ OF 2020 CW GITHUA, J OCTOBER 1, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ PROSECUTOR AND ROBERT MAINA WAMBUI ....................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused, Robert Maina Wambui was charged with the offence of murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code but was convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter under a plea bargain agreement dated 4th February 2024. 2. The particulars of the offence are that on 7th July 2020 at Miruri village in Kabage Location, Kandara Sub-County in Murang’a County, the accused caused the death of Henry Maina Njuguna. 3. The facts of the case are that the deceased and the accused were cousins but their relationship was sour owing to an existing land dispute. On the material date, the deceased went to the accused’s home accompanied by two other people. They started causing havoc after alleging that the accused’s sister one Rachael had obstructed a path giving access to homes of other relatives. The deceased proceeded to demolish Rachael’s kitchen and was still in the compound chasing accused’s children and hurling insults at accused’s wife and sister when the accused returned home at around 7.00 p.m. The accused demanded to know why the deceased was causing a breach of the peace in his compound. A confrontation ensued in the course of which the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest causing his instant death. The matter was reported to the police who proceeded to the scene, arrested the accused and took the deceased’s body to Githumu Hospital for preservation awaiting a post-mortem examination. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19615/eng@2025-10-01 1
page 1 of 2
4. A post-mortem examination was conducted on 10th July 2020. The cause of death was established to be cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to internal haemorrhage due to a penetrating stab wound caused by a sharp object on the deceased’s right chest. The post mortem report was produced in evidence as P.Exbt 1. 5. After investigations were completed, the accused was charged with the offence of murder which as I have stated earlier was later substituted with the offence of manslaughter. 6. In mitigation on behalf of the accused, learned counsel Mr. Kariuki submitted that the accused was a family man aged 51 years and that he was remorseful for the manner in which he handled the provocation by the deceased on the material date. He urged me to consider the four years the accused had spent in lawful custody as sufficient punishment for the offence he committed; that his release will help him pick up the pieces and rebuild his life. 7. I have considered the facts of this case and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. I have also considered the mitigating factors offered on behalf of the accused including the fact that he is a first offender. I have also considered the findings made in the pre-sentence report filed on 16th June 2025. The report shows that the victim had attacked and threatened the accused together with members of his family several times prior to the material date due to confiicts fuelled by a long standing land dispute. It is this dispute that led to the confrontation that culminated into the death of the victim. 8. From the facts of this case which are replicated in the social inquiry report, it is clear to me that the death of the deceased was not premeditated. The accused apparently acted on the spur of the moment in defence of his sister, wife and children who he found being molested by the deceased. In the ensuing confrontation which escalated into a fight, the deceased was stabbed and succumbed to death from the resultant injuries. 9. Given the foregoing and considering that the accused has been in custody for over four years and having taken into account the views of the victims’ family as expressed in the pre-sentence report, I am satisfied that even though manslaughter is a serious offence which attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, a custodial sentence is not appropriate in this case. I find that a non-custodial sentence is more suitable in this case as it will facilitate the full rehabilitation of the accused and give the two families a chance for reconciliation. 10. In the premises, I sentence the accused to serve three years on probation under the supervision of the Murang’a Probation Office. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. HON. C. W. GITHUA JUDGE In the presence of: Accused - present Mr. Kariuki for the accused – absent Ms Muriu for the State Ms. Susan Waiganjo, Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19615/eng@2025-10-01 2
page 2 of 2