On the evening of December 30, 2023, in the quiet village of Kapchereren in Belgut, Kericho County, a confrontation between three familiar faces turned violent.
Victor Kiprono Bett, on his way home at 7:30 pm, was ambushed by two men he recognised as Patrick Kiplangat Rono and Denis Cheruiyot Rono.
The attack would later land the duo in court, pleading guilty to three serious charges.
This past week, on June 5, 2025, the High Court of Kenya at Kericho delivered its ruling, where Justice Joseph Karanja presided over the appeal.
The case was born out of a dramatic incident that unfolded just before the new year.
According to facts read in court during plea-taking, the confrontation stemmed from a personal vendetta.
Kiplangat accused Kiprono of having an affair with his wife.
The altercation escalated when Kiplangat struck Kiprono with a panga on his right ankle.
The two brothers then forced the injured Kiprono to accompany them, allegedly to explain himself to their mother.
Upon arrival at the family home, their mother, who was also charged initially, reportedly dismissed their actions, stating they had attacked the wrong person.
The heated exchange among the family members ended with Kiprono being abandoned by the roadside, unconscious.
He was later rushed to the hospital, and a P3 form confirmed he had suffered grievous harm.
Following their arrest and arraignment before the Senior Resident Magistrate at Kericho, the Rono brothers pleaded guilty to all three charges.
These included grievous harm under Section 234 of the Penal Code, kidnapping to subject to grievous harm under Section 260, and conspiracy to commit a felony under Section 393.
Upon confirming and accepting the facts of the case as narrated by the prosecution, the trial court convicted them on all counts.
The sentencing on January 4, 2024, saw Kiplangat and Cheruiyot each receive 10 years for grievous harm, five years for kidnapping and three years for conspiracy.
The sentences were to run concurrently, effectively translating into a decade behind bars.
Unsatisfied with the outcome, the two appealed, initially contesting only the sentence but later broadening their scope to include conviction.
However, during submissions, their counsel clarified the appeal was focused solely on the severity of the sentence.
In their amended petition, the appellants contended the punishment was "harsh and excessive" given the circumstances.
They asked the High Court to consider their status as first-time offenders and the remorse they had shown.
On behalf of the State, the counsel opposed the appeal, maintaining that the trial court had acted within the law and imposed lawful sentences.
He argued the guilty pleas, acceptance of the facts, and the nature of the injuries warranted the punishment handed down.
Justice Karanja, however, struck a more nuanced tone.
While affirming the legality of the original sentences, he expressed reservations about the proportionality of the punishment relative to the circumstances.
“Although the entire concurrent sentence was lawful,” he observed, “the circumstances of this case called for a much lenient sentence, especially considering that the appellants were first offenders and have since expressed profound remorse for the offences.”
He further found that while the facts supported the conviction for grievous harm, they did not disclose the offences of kidnapping or conspiracy.
Nevertheless, since the appellants had pleaded guilty to all charges and did not contest their convictions, the court upheld them.
In a gesture balancing legal integrity with compassion, Justice Karanja revised the sentences downward.
He was sentenced to three years for grievous harm and two years each for kidnapping and conspiracy, all to run concurrently.
In effect, the Rono brothers would now serve only three years.
But in a final twist, Justice Karanja noted that the pair had already served approximately a year in custody.
As a result, he ruled that they would serve the remaining period under probation, under the supervision of the County Probation Officer in Kericho.
“The two appellants shall forthwith be released to the probation officer for implementation of the sentence as herein revised,” he ordered.
