Court weighs clan compensation in murder sentencing

The practice of clan compensation took centre stage in a Kabarnet courtroom as a murder convict’s family sought leniency through payment of cash and livestock to the victim’s relatives.

The High Court heard that the offender’s family had offered Sh500,000 and two cows to the victim’s relatives as a reconciliation gesture.

The case stems from the killing of Solomon Kipkorir Cherogony in February 2021 at a village, Baringo North, in which Everline Kabon Kiptisia was found guilty.

According to the probation report, evidence presented in court showed that a quarrel over money turned violent, leading to the tragic incident.

“The offence occurred after an altercation. The accused confronted the deceased about money, and a quarrel ensued. The deceased had a panga, while the accused retrieved a Maasai sword and fatally attacked him.

She also used the deceased’s panga during the assault. She later claimed the act was committed in anger and self-defence,” part of the judgment stated.

During mitigation, the defence lawyer told the court that Kiptisia’s relatives had already delivered part of the compensation, Sh200,000, while raising funds for the livestock and a final balance.

“When the matter came up on February 13, 2025, for mitigation, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the families of the accused and the deceased had reached a form of reconciliation.

According to him, the accused’s family had agreed to compensate the deceased’s family with two cows and Sh500,000. He stated that Sh200,000 had already been paid, though a specific date for payment of the balance had not been agreed,” read the ruling.

He argued that the payment, coupled with the accused’s alleged age of over sixty years, ill health, and remorse, justified a non-custodial sentence.

The prosecution disagreed, with the State counsel urging the court to impose a deterrent custodial sentence.

She noted that while the defence spoke of compensation, official pre-sentence reports did not confirm the payments.

Three probation reports later painted a mixed picture.

Some of Kiptisia’s relatives supported her plea for leniency, citing her remorse and fragile health.

Others, including her co-wife and eldest son, opposed it, allegedly describing her as violent, prone to alcohol use, and a danger to the community if released.

The victim’s family remained firm.

His widow, mother, sister, and uncle rejected the idea of a non-custodial sentence, saying compensation was accepted only for clan reconciliation due to intermarriage ties, not as a substitute for justice.

“Although the family acknowledged the Sh500,000 compensation and upcoming cleansing ceremony, they stated that the compensation was purely for reconciliation at the clan level due to intermarriage, not a basis for leniency.

They even expressed concern for the accused’s safety if released and returned to the community,” the report stated.

Community leaders echoed these sentiments, with the local administrator warning that the accused was allegedly known for violent behaviour and her release could endanger both herself and others.

When the matter came before Justice Rachel Ngetich, the court acknowledged the clan compensation as a cultural gesture of reconciliation but stressed that it could not eclipse the gravity of murder.

The judge noted that the Penal Code prescribes the death penalty for murder but allows discretion to impose lesser sentences.

“I have considered the accused’s mitigation, her age, ill-health, the partial reconciliation efforts through compensation, and the contents of the pre-sentence reports,” she observed.

The judge also took note of the convict’s prior jail term for grievous harm, her lack of immediate remorse, and that reconciliation efforts came only after conviction, offering little comfort to the victim’s family.

“However, the Court must balance justice, accountability, and the possibility of rehabilitation, particularly given the accused’s advanced age and the reconciliation gestures made.

In view of the above and the totality of circumstances surrounding the offence, I am persuaded to impose a lenient custodial sentence,” Justice Ngetich ruled.

The court therefore rejected a non-custodial sentence but imposed a 10-year jail term, directing that time already served in custody be deducted under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.