Republic v Kinuthia & another (Criminal Case E008 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8233 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8233 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MURANG'A CRIMINAL CASE E008 OF 2021 TW OUYA, J JUNE 11, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ PROSECUTOR AND SIMON IRUNGU KINUTHIA ............................................................. 1ST ACCUSED STANLEY KIMANI KINUTHIA ......................................................... 2ND ACCUSED SENTENCE 1. The accused, Simon Irungu Maina and Stanley Kimani Kinuthia were jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code and were convicted on his own Plea of Guilty with the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code under a plea bargain agreement executed on behalf of the state on 11th December, 2024 and signed by both accused on the same date, and the same was presented in court on 9th April, 2025. 2. The particulars supporting the charge were that on 14th March 2021 at Marumi Village, in Kirere Location, Kigumo Sub-County within Murang’a County, the accused caused the death of David Kinuthia Ngachere. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13th March 2021 at around 10pm the deceased, Kinuthia Ngachere was in the house with his wife Hannah Wanjiku Kinuthia when they heard their sons Simion Irungu Kinuthia and Staley Kimani Kinuthia quarrelling outside. The deceased stepped outside his house to inquire why they were causing disturbance in the neighbourhood. The two accused who were his sons then entered the compound while throwing stones. The 1st Accused entered the compound from behind while the 2nd Accused was at the gate. The 1st Accused grabbed the deceased by the neck while the 2nd Accused broke the gate and beat up the deceased and strangled him to death. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8233/eng@2026-06-11 1
page 1 of 3
4. Hannah, their mother and wife of the deceased screamed for help and neighbours came. 1st Accused was among the first people at the scene and was apprehended, while the 2nd Accused fled. The area Chief reported the matter to Kigumo Police Station and officers therefrom visited the scene and investigated the matter. The deceased’s body was taken to Githumu Mission Hospital Mortuary. 5. On 16.03.21 post mortem was performed and cause of death found to be strangulation of neck by blunt object and extensive head trauma. 6. The post mortem of the deceased and Mental Assessment Reports of the accused persons were produced as evidence. The accused were found to be in their right minds to participate in the trial. 7. Upon the accused confirming the facts, plea of not guilty was entered and the accused convicted accordingly with the offence of manslaughter. 8. On mitigation, Counsel for both accused submitted that both of them are family men, married with children. They are remorseful and are first offenders. They regret the incident that caused the death of their father which they blamed on abuse of drugs and substances. That they have now realised that they could have resolved the matter amicably and did not intend to kill their father. That they are remorseful, pray for the court’s lenience and are ready to face the consequences of their action. They also urge the court to take into account that they have remained in custody since 2021. 9. The pre-sentence reports by the Principal Probation Officer dated 21st August 2025 on both accused persons indicate that the accused are not suitable for non-custodial sentence as they lack social network and pose danger to their personal life and to significant others. 10. I have carefully considered the facts of this case and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. I am particularly concerned that the accused persons killed their own father in a brutal manner causing unbearable grief and fear to their mother who has since been condemned to a life of loneliness while the other family members are still terrified and live in bitterness. They are vehemently opposed to their release on a non-custodial sentence. 11. I have also considered the accused’s plea in mitigation, including their age which is stated to be 59 and 44 years respectively in the pre-sentence report and the fact that they are first offenders and have families. I have also taken into account the objectives of sentencing as set out in the Judiciary’s Sentencing Policy Guidelines which includes retribution, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection and denunciation. 12. That said, I would like to point out at this juncture, that the offence of manslaughter is a serious offence which attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In as much as I have taken due consideration of the accused’s plea in mitigation, I find that the impact of their action far outweighs the mitigation that would call for leniency leading to a non-custodial sentence. Given the facts of this case, I concur with the Probation Officer’s recommendation and find that the accused are not suitable for a noncustodial sentence. 13. In my consideration, a custodial sentence would be most appropriate in the circumstances. Taking into account all relevant factors, including the fact that the accused have been in custody for a period of five (5) years, I hereby sentence the accused to serve seventeen (17) years imprisonment. The sentence will take effect from 21st April, 2021, when the accused were first arraigned before this court. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. HON. T. W. OUYA, OGW JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8233/eng@2026-06-11 2
page 2 of 3
In the presence of: Ndege for State Kariuki for the 2 Accused persons Accused persons present from Murang’a Main Prison https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8233/eng@2026-06-11 3
page 3 of 3