A High Court has allowed an appeal for a reduction of sentence in a case where a son was convicted of assaulting his mother, cutting short the 10-year prison term he had been handed by a lower court.
The man had pleaded guilty to causing grievous harm but later challenged the sentence as excessive, citing remorse, reform, and his status as a first-time offender.
The case began after a domestic disagreement turned violent one night in late September 2023.
The man, reportedly intoxicated, woke his mother from sleep and demanded food.
When she refused, the situation escalated. He picked up a stick and struck her, causing an open fracture on her left hand.
Her cries for help attracted neighbours who rushed in, restrained the attacker, and handed him over to police.
The victim was rushed for medical treatment while the accused was detained, later facing charges for grievous harm.
He was arraigned in court and eventually pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 234 of the Penal Code.
In February 2024, the trial court sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
But even after admitting guilt, the accused returned to court seeking leniency.
In his appeal, he did not dispute the facts of the case or the conviction, only the punishment.
He said the sentence was unduly harsh and did not take into account key mitigating factors.
“I pleaded guilty to the preferred charges and remain the same. I’m remorseful, hence seeking the Honourable court to grant me a second chance,” he told the court.
He explained that the incident was driven by intoxication and a lapse in judgment, and that he had since undergone counselling and spiritual transformation while in prison.
The man also pointed to his clean record before the offence and assured the court that he was committed to changing his ways.
He pleaded for mercy, saying he had no support system, having grown up as an orphan, and hoped for a chance to rebuild his life.
Citing past cases, he argued that the courts have a duty to balance punishment with rehabilitation and proportionality.
The prosecution opposed the appeal, stating that the conviction and sentence were lawful and that due process had been followed at every stage.
The guilty plea had been properly recorded in line with legal standards, and the facts of the offence were admitted in court, they argued.
They maintained that the sentence was within the legal limits and deserved to be upheld.
However, Justice Asenath Ongeri, handling the appeal, took a broader view.
In her ruling, she acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, an assault on a parent, committed in anger and resulting in significant injury, but said the trial court had failed to give sufficient weight to the personal circumstances of the offender.
“The appellant is a first-time offender. He pleaded guilty, expressed genuine remorse, and attributed his actions to intoxication and a momentary lapse in judgment,” the judge noted.
She added that sentencing in criminal cases must reflect not only the nature of the crime but also the prospects for rehabilitation.
“While the offence was undoubtedly serious, the principles of sentencing under Kenyan law require proportionality, rehabilitation, and consideration of mitigating factors,” Justice Ongeri said.
Citing precedents, the judge reiterated that sentences should be tailored to fit not only the crime but the offender’s circumstances.
“A sentence should be commensurate with the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the harm caused, while leaving room for reform,” she said, quoting an earlier Court of Appeal decision.
The judge also recognised the appellant’s efforts at self-improvement, including participation in counselling and spiritual growth sessions during incarceration. This, she said, demonstrated that the accused had taken steps toward personal reform and reintegration into society.
She found that although grievous harm can legally attract a life sentence, the facts of this particular case didn’t justify such a lengthy punishment.
Instead, the court emphasised the importance of weighing the time the man had already served, his genuine remorse, and the personal circumstances he presented.
“Consequently, I allow the appeal on sentence, set aside the 10-year imprisonment term, and direct the probation officer to file another presentence report to enable this court to met an appropriate sentence,” Justice Ongeri ruled.
