Republic v Vincent Kiprono Koech Alias Fire

On their way home, they were joined by two other men namely Dominic Kipngetich D-5 and Vincent Koech E-1 and another friend only identified as Keldet. Keldet was in a hurry and left the other four to attend to his issues. While walking home, Dominic Kipngetich D-5 confirmed that the deceased was very drunk. A fight arose between D-1 and E-1 which motive of the fight could not be revealed. Dominic Kipngetich d-5 intervened and separated both D-1 and E-1. Having been separated, E-1 ran towards his home leaving D-1, D-3 and the deceased as they walked to the same direction of their home. Later Vincent Koech E-1 attacked the deceased with a claw hammer and a panga. The deceased sustained serious injuries. An autopsy was conducted at Tenwek Hospital Mortuary by Dr. Dickson Mutai who formed an opinion that the deceased died as a result of a severe head injury. The Accused was arrested and charged with murder. He has ofiered to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter. The family had informed the state that they had forgiven the Accused and have no objection to the reduction of the charges. The Prosecution and the investigation team accept that: - 6. i. The Accused is a fellow village mate. ii. The quarrel was a result of drunkardness. iii. The Accused was drunk when they engaged in a heated argument which resulted to the demise of his village mate.” The Accused accepted the facts as true and was convicted his on her own guilty plea for the lesser ofience of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. Pre-Sentence Report 7. A pre-sentence probation report was filed on 16th December 2025 and it indicated that the Accused, deceased and his friends had gone to drink when a fight broke out. That the Accused hit the deceased severally on the head with a hammer and the deceased later succumbed to his injuries. The report further indicated that the Accused regretted his actions and was remorseful. That due to the alcohol he took, he could not fully rationalize the consequences of his actions. 8. The pre-sentence probation report stated that the tensions caused in the community as a result of the Accused’s actions had subsided and there was no real danger towards the Accused’s life. The local community however stated that it would not be wise to impose a non-custodial sentence on the Accused. 9. The Probation Officer recommended that the Accused not be subjected to a non-custodial sentence. Victim Impact Statement. 10. The victim’s family stated that they had undergone psychological pain. That the Accused’s family members had initiated reconciliatory talks and that they did not harbor hatred towards the Accused. The victim’s family further stated that the Accused deserved to serve a custodial sentence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2107/eng@2026-02-25 2

page 2 of 3

11. The Prosecution submitted that the Accused had not shown remorse. They further submitted that after taking into account the fact that the deceased had dependants, the sacredness of life and the severity of the ofience, they proposed a sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment. 12. Sentencing serves multiple purposes as enumerated in the Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 which outline the objectives of sentencing at paragraph 1.3.1 as follows: Sentences are imposed to meet the following objectives. There will be instances in which the objectives may conflict with each other- in so far as possible, sentences imposed should be geared towards meeting the objectives in totality. 13. i. Retribution. ii. Deterrence. iii. Rehabilitation. iv. Restorative justice. v. Community Protection. vi. Denunciation. vii. Reconciliation. viii. Reintegration. The penal section for the ofience of manslaughter is contained in section 205 of the Penal Code which provides: Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. 14. I have considered the circumstances of the case, the pre-sentence report and the Prosecution’s submissions. It is my finding that this in this case, a life was lost and the circumstances under which the victim lost his life were avoidable. Accordingly, the Accused must serve a custodial sentence to deter other like-minded people who want to hide behind the vice of alcoholism. In the end, the Accused is sentenced to serve 7 years sentence to run from the date of plea on 12th November, 2024. 14 days right of appeal. JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. …………………………………… HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR JUDGE Judgement delivered in the presence of: Siele/Susan (Court Assistants). Ms Ayekha for the State. Accused: Ondieki for the Accused. Kiprop - Probation Officer. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2107/eng@2026-02-25 3

page 3 of 3