Republic v Lonyangiro [2025] KEHC 5124 (KLR)

Republic v Lonyangiro (Criminal Case E002 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 5124 (KLR) (29 April 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 5124 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Kapenguria

Criminal Case E002 of 2022

RPV Wendoh, J

April 29, 2025

Between

Republic

Prosecutor

and

Pamela Chemnung Lonyangiro

Accused

Ruling

1. The accused was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. After a full trial the court convicted the accused of a lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code.

2. Under section 205 of Penal Code, the prescribed sentence is a maximum of life imprisonment.

3. In determining the appropriate sentence, this court is guided by the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines. The guidelines give a wide berth that courts ought to consider when sentencing. They are 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 communityviii.Reintegration; To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society.

4. Further in the “Muruatetu Case. Pet.1/2015, the Supreme court outlined the following guidelines as being applicable when the court was considering the issue of resentencing; 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.

5. In this case, accused is said to be aged fifty-eight (58) years old. She was treated as a first offender. The Accused’s Counsel urged that she is remorseful for her actions and has undergone reform through various biblical studies she had undertaken when in remand. Counsel also urged the court to take into account the Muruatetu case, that the accused was a victim of gender-based violence and prayed for leniency.

6. I have also taken into account the pre-sentence report in which it is indicated that the deceased’s step children and family of the deceased are still very bitter, that the accused has not shown any remorse to them and they are not ready to see accused released on non-custodial sentence. There is fear that there may be revenge attacks on the accused if released on non-custodial sentence.

7. Although Counsel submitted that the accused was a subject of gender based violence the same was raised in the defence but the court found no evidence of gender based violence. Otherwise accused’s children and the Administration would have known of it.

8. A life was lost through the very merciless and vicious attack by the accused on the deceased. The injuries that the accused inflicted in on the deceased speak for themselves. The victim’s family has lost their loved one and the court considers a retributive and deterrent sentence. I hereby sentence the Accused to twelve (12) years imprisonment. The sentence is effective from 1/2/2022 when she was arraigned in court.

9. Right of Appeal explained.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAPENGURIA THIS 29THDAY OF APRIL 2025R. WENDOH.JUDGESentence delivered in open court in the presence of; -Prosecution Counsel – Mr. MajaleMs. Sugut for accusedAccused –presentJuma/Regina - Court Assistants.