Republic v Ruto [2022] KEHC 13828 (KLR)

Republic v Ruto (Criminal Case 12 of 2018) [2022] KEHC 13828 (KLR) (6 October 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13828 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nakuru

Criminal Case 12 of 2018

HK Chemitei, J

October 6, 2022

Between

Republic

State

and

Edmond Kimutai Ruto

Accused

Ruling

1. Edmond Mutai Ruto (“accused person”) was originally charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. He was accused of killing, with malice aforethought, Cynthia Chelang’at, on February 9, 2018 at at Njokeiro estate in Njoro Njoro Sub county within Nakuru County.

2. The accused person initially pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. The trial commenced and one witness was heard. However, later, the accused person accepted a plea agreement.

3. By a plea agreement dated November 8, 2021, the accused person pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read together with section 205 of the Penal Code. After due caution, and after satisfying myself that the plea agreement was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, I recorded a conviction and called for pre-sentencing report and victim impact statements (if desired) and set the case for a sentencing hearing.

4. The agreed facts of the case are laid out in the plea agreement as follows:The brief facts are that on the February 19, 2018 at 0730 hours, one Cynthia Chelangat (the deceased) who was a fourth year student at the University of Egerton was in her rental house at Njokerio Estate when the accused person, Edmond Ruto (the deceased’s fiancée) who had been barred from accessing the room the previous night sneaked into the room. The accused person demanded that the deceased explains to him where she had spent the previous night. An exchange of words ensued between the two. The accused person locked the room from inside and that’s when the deceased started screaming for help. The deceased tried to hide the kitchen knife from the accused in vain. The accused person snatched the knife from the deceased and stabbed her twice on the neck, in the abdomen and in the thigh.Members of the public who were responding to the distress call tried to gain entry into the room by breaking the metal door. The accused person who was threatening to kill himself took a sharp kitchen knife and stabbed himself twice on the neck and fell unconscious.Bodies of the deceased and the accused were found lying in a pool of blond by members of the public. They were both rushed to Nakuru PGH where the deceased was pronounced dead upon arrival. The accused person was treated and handed over to PC Abakunu Madera of Njoro police station in stable condition. The accused was escorted to Njoro police station where he was booked into a cell.On March 23, 2018, an autopsy was performed by Dr Titus Ngulungu at Egerton University funeral home on the deceased’s body. The post mortem conducted noted that the cause of death was asphyxia/blood loss caused by sharp force trauma. The findings of the autopsy are contained in the police post mortem form P23A. The accused person was then charged with the offence of murder.

5. The prosecutor, Ms Mumbe, informed the court that the accused person was a first offender. However, she told the court that the circumstances in which the offence was conducted reveal an aggravating factor: the accused person had initially been barred from the deceased’s hostel and then he sneaked in and locked himself in and picked a fight with the deceased. The deceased was so scared that he went to hide the kitchen knife but it was in vain. Accused retrieved the same, stabbed the victim twice on the neck and again on the abdomen and thigh. The prosecutor told the court that the victim was a university student, a former girlfriend of the accused person whose life was cut short only for leaving the accused person. She suggested a custodial sentence of twenty years.

6. The deceased’s uncle, Paul Kirui, also addressed the court on behalf of the family of the deceased. He explained that the deceased’s mother is a single mother and that the deceased was their only hope in life; that the whole extended family had contributed to her school fees so that she could later on lift the family. He asked the court take stern action against the accused person so that it serves as a lesson to others. He proposed life imprisonment as the only proportionate sentence.

7. Mr Kipkoech, counsel for the victim’s family was of like mind. He asked the court to take into consideration that the deceased died in a brutal, crude and dehumanizing manner. He also asked the court to consider that the demise of the deceased was brought by a person in the position of trust a boyfriend. This must be seen, he said, “against the prism of freedom of liberty and association of person within relations including person in the opposite sex and other relations.” These relationships are not relationships of slavery or servitude, he said, adding that the court should send a message to men and women that intimacy is not slavery. He asked for a proper deterrent sentence “to restore the equilibrium” and send a “message to girls and women that they are not instruments. They are human beings with dignity.”

8. .

9. In mitigation, Ms Mungai, learned defence counsel, told the court that the accused person is quite youthful at only 25 years old and that he was a student at Egerton University studying economics and statistics; that he has six siblings and is the third born in a family that was also looking up to him as the only college matriculant.

10. Both Ms Mungai and the accused person himself told the court that he was remorseful and has taken responsibility for this actions. He said that he has requested his family to visit the victim’s family and offer his apologies on his behalf; and traditional penance and offer of reconciliation. The accused person said that he is aware that his actions have caused a lot of pain to many people and he only wishes to be a better person if given a second chance. He expressed deep regret for his actions.

11. I have considered the following relevant factors in fashioning an appropriate sentence for the accused person in this case:a.The accused person pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter and therefore saved the family the anguish of having to endure the whole trial and also saved much judicial time.b.The accused person appeared to be genuinely remorseful.c.The accused person is a first offender.d.The pre-sentence report is quite favourable and recommends non-custodial sentence which, it says, will provide an opportunity for the accused person to be rehabilitated.

12. However, while these are positive mitigating factors, as the Prosecutor pointed out, the circumstances under which the offence was committed points to a substantial aggravating factor. While it appears true that the accused person did not have malice aforethought when he committed the offence, the circumstances point to a particularly disturbing homicide borne of gender-based violence. First, the deceased had informed the accused person that she did not want their relationship any more. The accused person would not accept that and insisted on being in her hostel. Second, even the victim took steps to make herself safer by hiding the kitchen knife, the accused person still found it and used it to assault the deceased. This is is the kind of toxic masculine behaviour that requires vehement discouragement in our young people as the Victim’s counsel correctly pointed out.

13. Consequently, given all these factors, I have formed the opinion that a custodial sentence of ten (10) years will be sufficient sentence for this crime. The custodial sentence will begin running from February 21, 2018 when the accused person was first arraigned since the accused person has been in custody since that time.

14. Orders accordingly.

DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 29THDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022………………………JOEL NGUGIJUDGEDELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 6THDAY OF OCTOBER, 2022……………………………HILLARY CHEMITEIJUDGE