Republic v Kevin Wafula Nandasasa & 1 other

iv) On the night of 5th April,2019 at around 2100hrs the accused and the deceased were in their house when a quarrel arose about the accused having not paid house rent. That every Friday when he would got money he would go take illicit brew instead of taking care of the house bills. v) The accused strangled the deceased using a piece of a black wire before she was able to escape outside the room. She later got back to the house. vi) The deceased told FM that she was afraid that he accused person might kill her that night. vii) As the minor was about to sleep the deceased informed her in case she dies she takes some money under the sofa without clarifying further. viii) On 6th April 2019 at around 0600hrs in the morning the accused woke up FM and instructed her to go and fetch water. As she left, she saw the deceased, her aunt, sleeping on the bed on top of a mosquito net. She didn't think much of it but then left and when she later came back to collect containers for her second round, she found the deceased still on bed and she thought it was odd since the deceased usually woke up early. ix) FM then asked the accused what was wrong with the deceased and he said that nothing was wrong with her she that she was just sleeping and that she should go outside and play. x). While she was outside playing a lady who owned a nearby kiosk asked her to go tell the deceased to pay the 5 shillings, they owned for paraffin she had given to her. xi) The minor proceeded to the house and found the door locked. She knocked and after some time the accused opened and prevented her from getting into the house. The accused told the minor to go back and inform the lady that they he would bring the money later. xii) The minor then left again to the kiosk and then the accused came immediately and instructed her they go to collect some money to person known as Muindi Muesi within the slum. When they got there Muindi Muesi told them he did not have the money. xiii) The accused then instructed the minor FM to go back to the house as it was just a short distance as he needed to go to work. When she got the house, she found the door closed from outside and when she opened and got in, she found the deceased hanging on her neck on the wall and there was a mosquito net tied on her neck. xiv) She immediately took the deceased mobile phone and tried to call her mother and she realized the phone didn't have credit. She then took the money the deceased, had informed her where to look and she found 40 shillings which she rushed outside and bought credit for 10 shillings. She then tried to call her mother but the phone was still not going through. xv). She then decided to go the deceased friends house Mama Angle who come and raised an alarm to the neighbors when she saw the deceased. They then called the accused who went straight to make a report at Mukuru police Post vide OB 9/06/04/2019 later accompanied the officers to the scene. xvi) The scene was processed and the officers noted that deceased had visible wounds on one her left ribs, her tongue was protruding out, the blue jeans she was wearing had been soiled on both sides and on her knees, it seems like she who was kneeling prior to death. They also noted the house items were scattered which appeared there was struggle. Beside the body five meter away they found a black wire which measured about 5 meters which they took and kept as an exhibit. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11551/eng@2026-01-15 2

page 2 of 5

xvii) At the scene Sgt Anges Mwania from Mukuru Police Post received information from the minor FM that she was not allowed to get in the house by the accused person until when the accused person left the house. This prompted her to arrest the accused person for further investigations. xviii) On 10th April,2019the postmortem was conducted and the cause of death was established to be neck compression secondary to manual strangulation. xix) On 15th 2019 he was subjected to mental assessment where the report indicated that he was fit stand trial. 4. It is clear from a reading of the plea agreement that the same was voluntarily entered into thus the accused person exercised his free will in appending his signature to the agreement. 5. On the 30th September 2025 the accused person informed the court that he was comfortable in having the proceedings conducted in Kiswahili a language he said he understands thus the manslaughter information was read to him in Kiswahili and in the response to the same he stated “nakubali mashtaka kwamba niliua bila kukusudia” (I admit the charge. I killed unintentionally). Thereby admitting that he had indeed killed the deceased unintentionally. The court proceeded to enter a plea of guilt for the offense of manslaughter contrary with Section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal Code against the accused 6. The facts as recorded in the plea agreement filed on 25th August 2025 were adopted by the state and read over in Kiswahili to the accused person. 7. The accused admitted the facts stating that it was indeed true that he had killed the deceased who was his wife. Upon the admission by the accused he was convicted of his own plea of guilty on the offense of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal Code. 8. The court called for a pre-sentence report after the prosecution counsel indicated that they were unable to get the victims. It later turned that the probation department was also unable to reach the victims and in mitigation the accused person through counsel indicated that he was remorseful and that he had undertaken courses geared towards rehabilitation. He also produced documents which this court has looked at as a demonstration that he had undergone various trainings. Counsel informed the court that the accused is barely 31 years old and that he has rejoined school while in custody and currently in form three. Counsel pleaded with the court to consider that the accused had pleaded guilty to the offense of manslaughter thereby saving precious judicial time. 9. The accused was also said to be a father of two children with whom he has maintained conduct with even while in custody. Counsel further added that the court should consider the best interest of the children as it metes out sentence to the accused. 10. The accused is said to be suffering from ulcers and as such counsel pleaded that the prison facility is not conducive for him. The court was further urged that the accused is a first offender and that he was arrested on 6th April 2019 and has all along been in prison custody. 11. Counsel for the accused urged the court to consider the length of period spend in custody in line with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 12. Further, the accused person urged to consider imposing a non custodial sentence. Ms Njoroge for the state argued that the offense occurred within a domestic setting and that the accused prematurely ended the life of his spouse thus breaching his duty of care to her. Counsel for the state urged the court to consider the rise in domestic violence cases in Kenya and consequently sentence the accused to a prison https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11551/eng@2026-01-15 3

page 3 of 5

term of upto 20 years imprisonment. The defence counsel proposed a 10 year prison term inclusive of the time spent in custody. 13. The court has considered the facts as well as the mitigating circumstances advanced by the accused person. The court takes judicial notice of the rise in domestic violence cases and femicide cases in the country. The deceased in this matter was killed by her own husband in her sleep. The killing was unwarranted considering the totality of the circumstances. It would also appear from the facts that the accused person was in the habit of taking illicit brew which led him to neglect his family. 14. On the material night, the issue appears to have been non payment of rent that sparked a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. 15. In sentencing the court is guided by the sentencing policy guidelines 2023 and in particular guideline number 1.3.1 which provides: 1.3.1 Sentences are imposed to meet the following objectives. There will be instances in which the objectives may conflict with each other – insofar as possible, sentences imposed should be geared towards meeting the objectives in totality. i. Retribution: To punish the offender for their criminal conduct in a just manner. ii. Deterrence: To deter the offender from committing a similar or any other offence in future as well as to discourage the public from committing offences. iii. Rehabilitation: To enable the offender to 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 sustained by the victim or the community and to promote a sense of responsibility through the offender’s contribution towards meeting those needs. v. Community protection: To protect the community by removing the offender from the community thus avoiding the further perpetuation of the offender’s criminal acts. vi. Denunciation: To clearly 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. 16. The offence of manslaughter attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment however under Section 205 of the Penal Code the court retains the discretion to impose a lesser sentence. This court has considered the fact that the accused pleaded guilty to the offence and has therefore accepted responsibility for his actions. It is also clear from the mitigation he is remorseful and is a first offender. However, the court must send a clear message to the accused person that life is precious and no one is allowed to take the life of another at will. In this case, the deceased does not appear to have in any way provoked the accused into committing the offence. The accused should be reminded that he who has a family must be prepared to provide for the family and cannot escape the duties of providing by simply resorting into alcoholism. 17. The accused needlessly took the life of the deceased thereby depriving the children of maternal love. Considering the totality of the facts of this matter, and guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Mutahi Vs Republic (Criminal Appeal E009 of 2021) [2025] KECA 1357 (KLR)where the Court https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11551/eng@2026-01-15 4

page 4 of 5

of Appeal stated: “Considering the subsisting jurisprudence in this Court and the High Court, the prison sentence handed to murder convicts generally oscillates between 25 and 40 years. Of course, the ultimate sentence of death and lower prison sentences are also imposed. For manslaughter, the common sentences passed are between 15 and 25 years. In stating so, we appreciate that each case must be treated according to its circumstances. Nevertheless, there is a need to ensure uniformity in sentencing. In this case, even if the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, the fact that the conviction arose from a guilty plea, even though secured through a plea agreement, ought to have been taken into account. This, however, is not to say that in all circumstances the sentence imposed for the charged offence must be vacated on appeal. In this appeal, It is not in dispute that the appellant assaulted his father with a walking stick. He later surrendered to the police upon learning of the death of his father. Upon being arraigned in court, he entered into a plea bargain agreement. As already noted, even in the cases where an accused has pleaded not guilty and is taken through a whole trial, being found guilty, the sentences vary depending on the circumstances but generally range between 25 to 50 years. Whereas sentencing is a discretionary power, it must be exercised in a manner that takes into account the circumstances of the case, the sentencing policy and consistency in court decisions. Taking this into account, it is clear that in the circumstances of this case, a 50-year jail term was harsh and excessive, and in disregard of the subsisting jurisprudence on sentencing. It is on this basis that we will interfere with the sentence of 50 years imprisonment and substitute it with one of 20 years imprisonment. In doing so, we appreciate the aggravating circumstances of the offence, which were well captured by the trial court.” this court finds that a custodial sentence is merited thus the accused person is hereby sentenced to a prison term of 15 years starting from the 6th April 2019 when the accused was arrested. The accused person has gotten away with this sentence simply because he accepted responsibility for the killing of the deceased thereby saving precious time of this court. 18. The accused has a right of appeal against sentence within 14 days from today. 19. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026. A. M. MUTETI JUDGE In the presence of: Habiba: Court Assistant Ms Njoroge for the Applicant Antony h/b Nzomo for Accused Accused Present https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11551/eng@2026-01-15 5

page 5 of 5