Republic v BKM (Criminal Case E026 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11841 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11841 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU CRIMINAL CASE E026 OF 2026 JM NANG'EA, J JULY 28, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND BKM .................................................................................................................. SUBJECT SENTENCE 1. The Subject who is a minor aged 13 or thereabouts pleaded guilty to the capital offence of Murder Contrary to Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on 23rd March, 2026 at Tepeswet Trading Centre, Sirikwa Location, Mauche Division in Njoro Sub-County, Nakuru County, the Subject murdered Elikana Kibet Cheruiyot. The Subject was found liable for the death on his own plea of guilty. 2. In his oral pre-sentence submissions, the defence Counsel (Mr Cheruiyot) tells the court inter alia that the Subject has no previous criminal records and has chosen to plead guilty. He is said to have been brought up in a difficult home environment. According to Counsel, he needs to be assisted to continue with his studies even in custody. Mr. Cheruiyot finds common ground with the Probation Officer that the Subject requires rehabilitation. 3. The Prosecution Counsel (Mr Wakasyaka) acknowledges that the Subject has no previous criminal records but notes from the Probation Officer’s report that the deceased’s relatives are opposed to a non-custodial community-based sentence. The court is further urged to take into account the brutal circumstances in which the deceased met his death occasioned by a knife. The Prosecution Counsel favours a rehabilitative custodial sentence as recommended by the Probation Officer. 4. The Probation Officer’s pre-sentence report dated 18th June 2026 notes that the Subject dropped out of school in Grade 5 because of his family’s financial constraints. He was born to a single parent which situation complicated his upbringing. According to the Probation Officer, the Subject’s mother has https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11841/eng@2026-07-28 1
page 1 of 2
several other children sired by different fathers and the minor does not know his biological father. It is observed that the Subject had been pestering his mother to disclose his biological father. The family is dysfunctional as the children lived with their grandparents at different times and are compelled by their home circumstances to fend for themselves at an early age. The Subject is said to have shown remorse and willingness to change his character. 5. The victim’s family expressed concern that the Subject’s family has not reached out to them for reconciliation in accordance with the community’s cultural practices. They regret loss of their kin who was described as a good role model. Relatives of the deceased are traumatized by the macabre act and have not forgiven him. It is recommended that the Subject be committed to Shanzu Probation Hostel for psychological counselling and to continue with his formal education. 6. I have considered the submissions against the applicable principles of sentencing and the operational Judiciary Sentencing Guidelines 2023. The court is also guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Others vs Republic, Petition No. 15 of 2015 which requires the court in sentencing to consider various factors including the age, character, remorsefulness and antecedents of an offender. It is noted that the Subject is a child aged 16 and has no criminal antecedents. He voluntarily agreed to enter into the Plea Agreement. 7. Pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Constitution, the Children Act and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023, the best interests of the child are paramount in a judicial process. Indeed the objective in sentencing a child ought to be rehabilitation and not retribution. 8. Having considered all the relevant factors, I concur with the prosecution Counsel and the Probation Officer that a non-custodial community-based sentence like probation or community service is not suitable in the circumstances of this case. While I appreciate the stated mitigating circumstances, the accused perpetrated a vicious attack against the deceased. His home and general community environment is not also conducive to his return as per the Probation Officer’s report. He requires psychological counselling, rehabilitation and help to continue with his education. 9. Doing the best I can in balancing the interests of justice and considering that the Subject is a minor, I commit him to Shanzu Probation Hostel for 3 (three) years for necessary counselling and rehabilitation. 10. Sentence imposed accordingly. J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE. RULING DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. In the presence of: The Prosecution Counsel, Mr Wakasyaka. The Defence Counsel, Mr Cheruiyot. The Subject. The Court Assistant, Jeniffer. J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11841/eng@2026-07-28 2
page 2 of 2