State v Siwareng (Criminal Case E004 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9295 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9295 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAPENGURIA CRIMINAL CASE E004 OF 2026 RPV WENDOH, J JUNE 29, 2026 BETWEEN STATE .................................................................................................... PROSECUTOR AND SELINA CHEPORENG SIWARENG .......................................................... ACCUSED SENTENCE 1. By the information dated 23/3/2021 Selina Cheporeng Siwareng was charged with the Offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars of the charge were that on 23/2/2026 at Lopal Village in West Pokot Sub-County, murdered Samson Kapenguria Longuronya. 3. Plea negotiations were entered into and a plea agreement was arrived at on 9/6/2026. The charge of murder was substituted with one of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. 4. The particulars of the charge are that on 23/2/2026 at Lopal Village – West Pokot Sub County unlawfully killed Samson Kapenguria Longuronya. 5. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of Manslaughter and the matter is now before me for sentence. 6. Sentencing is an exercise of the court’s discretion. The court is guided by the Constitution and the relevant laws on sentencing and also the 2016 Judiciary of Kenya sentencing Policy Guidelines. 7. In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another -V- Republic Petition 1/2015 eKLR, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of the courts discretion in sentencing when it said at paragraph “(72) We wish to make it very clear that these guidelines in no way replace judicial discretion. They are advisory and not mandatory. They are geared to promoting consistency and transparency in sentencing hearings. They are also aimed at promoting public understanding of the sentencing process”. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9295/eng@2026-06-29 1
page 1 of 3
8. 9. Page 15 Paragraph 4.1 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines provides for what the court should consider in sentencing as follows; i. Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner; ii. Deterrence; to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences; iii. Rehabilitation; to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person; iv. Restorative justice; to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages; v. Community Protection; to police the community by incapacitating the offender. vi. Denunciation; to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct. vii. Reconciliation; to mend the relationship between the offender the victim and the community viii. Reintegration; To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society. In Muruatetus’s case, the Supreme Court also considered mitigating factors that the court may consider when sentencing which are; 1. Age of the offender; 2. Being a first offender; 3. Whether the offender pleaded guilty; 4. Character and record of the offender; 5. Commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence; 6. Remorsefulness of the offender; 7. The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender; 8. Any other factor that the court considers relevant. 10. In the instant case, the Accused pleaded guilty to the offence. She was treated as a first offender and she has pleaded for leniency; that she was provoked; that she has grand children she looks after if imprisoned, they will suffer. 11. The court called for a presentence report which has been considered. The accused is an old lay of about seventy (70) years. The victim was her husband of about fifty (50) years. In presentence report, it was captured that she was defending herself and that she was drunk. It is a shame for a person of Accused’s age to be still engaging in alcohol consumption that she cannot be able to control her actions. 12. This is a serious offence where a life was lost. The offence was committed recently, in February 2026 and the emotions are still very fresh in people’s minds. It is my view that the accused serve a deterrent sentence where she should undergo some counselling before she is released back to society. I sentence her to eighteen (18) months imprisonment, the sentence will commence on 23/3/2026, the date she was arraigned in court. SENTENCE DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAPENGURIA THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9295/eng@2026-06-29 2
page 2 of 3
R. WENDOH JUDGE In the Presence of :Prosecution Counsel – Ms. Koech. Accused – present Ms. Sugut for accused. Juma/Hellen- Court Assistants https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9295/eng@2026-06-29 3
page 3 of 3