Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateOtherNot stated in the judgment (Milimani Anti-Corruption Court, Plea Agreement and Sentence)

Republic v Were (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E008 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 115 (KLR)

Milimani Anti-Corruption Court (Senior Principal Magistrate's Court)
26 May 2025
COC.N. ONDIEKI
7,202 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~29 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan IEBC official who used a forged degree avoided prison by pleading guilty, paying fines totalling Kshs. 220,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance sentencing decision of the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court (C.N. Ondieki, Principal Magistrate) following a plea agreement. The Accused, an Assistant Elections Officer at the IEBC, was on 6th February 2025 charged with seven counts: deceiving principal contrary to section 41(2) as read with section 48 of ACECA (Count I); forgery and uttering false documents contrary to sections 345, 349 and 353 of the Penal Code (Counts II-VII), relating to a forged Bachelor of Business Management degree certificate, academic transcripts and a graduation booklet in the name of Were Peter Onyango, purportedly issued by Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology. Parties entered a plea agreement; on 26th May 2025 the court accepted and adopted it as a judgment under sections 137H(1) and 137J of the Criminal Procedure Code. Counts II, IV and VI were withdrawn by the DPP under section 137A(1)(b), and the Accused was convicted on Counts I, III, V and VII. The court then undertook an extensive review of sentencing principles - purposes of sentencing, proportionality, section 333(2) CPC custody discounts, and the special position of first offenders - and of the principles governing sentencing upon a plea agreement under section 137I. Finding the mitigating factors (remorse, first-offender status, admission of all counts, no fraudulent gain of public property) to outweigh the aggravating factors, the court concurred with the non-custodial recommendation in the plea agreement. The Accused was fined Kshs. 70,000 on Count I and Kshs. 50,000 each on Counts III, V and VII, twelve months' imprisonment in default on each count, with the cash bail in court usable to pay the fines. The court advised the Accused that the plea-agreement judgment and sentence are final, appealable only as to extent or legality of sentence within fourteen days, per section 137L(1) CPC.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether to accept and adopt the Plea Agreement as a Judgment of the Court
  2. 2.What sentence to impose on Counts I, III, V and VII following the Plea Agreement
  3. 3.What factors and principles apply to sentencing upon a plea agreement

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of adopting a plea agreement

Holding

Adoption of a plea agreement is a judgment of the court and is followed by conviction and sentencing under sections 137H(2) and 137L of the CPC.

Reasoning

The court accepted the plea agreement under sections 137H(1) and 137J of the CPC on 26th May 2025. Because section 137H(2) requires the court to convict once a plea agreement is accepted, the adoption operated as a judgment. The marginal note to section 137L confirms that sentencing logically follows. Counts II, IV and VI were withdrawn by the DPP under section 137A(1)(b), leaving Counts I, III, V and VII on which guilty pleas were recorded and convictions entered.

p. 3
02

Applicable sentencing principles upon a plea agreement

Holding

The court retains ordinary sentencing discretion under sections 137I and 216 CPC, taking into account custody period, victim impact, the stage of the plea, restitution, mitigation, aggravating factors and the reconciliatory tone of the agreement.

Reasoning

Section 137I mandates consideration of time in custody, victim impact statements, the stage at which the accused indicated intention to plea, and any restitution or compensation. Section 216 permits receipt of evidence to inform sentence. The court canvassed broad sentencing purposes (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, denunciation) and principles of proportionality, appropriateness and adequacy, and applied them to a first-time offender who demonstrated deep remorse by entering a plea agreement admitting all counts.

p. 10
03

Custody period and first-offender status

Holding

Time spent in custody must be accounted for under section 333(2) CPC; first offenders should ordinarily receive non-custodial or fine options where available.

Reasoning

The court reviewed authority holding that section 333(2) obliges courts to discount periods spent in custody, and that where an offence is fineable and the convict is a first offender without aggravating circumstances, a fine should be considered first, since custodial sentences burden the state. These principles favoured a non-custodial sentence here, consistent with the DPP's recommendation in paragraph 18 of the plea agreement and the accused's own desired sentence.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Acceptance and adoption of a plea agreement constitutes a judgment of the court, and the court must then convict and proceed to sentence.
  • A plea agreement does not clip the court's sentencing discretion; the court retains full sentencing discretion, but the reconciliatory tone of the agreement weighs heavily on it.
  • Imprisonment should be imposed only where absolutely necessary on legitimate penological grounds of punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation.
  • Judgment and sentence entered upon a plea agreement are final and not appealable except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Counts II, IV and VI withdrawn by the DPP; guilty pleas recorded on Counts I, III, V and VII and the Accused convicted accordingly
  2. 2.Under Count I, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 70,000, in default twelve (12) months imprisonment
  3. 3.Under Count III, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000, in default twelve (12) months imprisonment
  4. 4.Under Count V, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000, in default twelve (12) months imprisonment
  5. 5.Under Count VII, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000, in default twelve (12) months imprisonment
  6. 6.The cash bail deposited in Court may be utilized to pay the fine
  7. 7.The Accused informed that the Judgment and Sentence upon Plea Agreement are final except as to extent or legality of sentence, with 14 days to appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

CO
C.N. ONDIEKIPRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 137A-137L of the Criminal Procedure Code (plea bargaining) and section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, exercised in first-instance criminal proceedings

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

Under Count I, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 70,000, the default of which the Accused shall serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months.
p. 11Sentence - Count I
Under Count III, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000, the default of which the Accused shall serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months.
p. 11Sentence - Count III
Under Count V, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000, the default of which the Accused shall serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months.
p. 11Sentence - Count V
Under Count VII, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000, the default of which the Accused shall serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months.
p. 11Sentence - Count VII
The cash bail deposited in Court may be utilized to pay the fine.
p. 11Payment of fine from cash bail
this Court concurs with the recommendation recorded in paragraph 18 of the Plea Agreement for a non-custodial sentence.
p. 11Adoption of recommended non-custodial sentence
both the Judgment entered upon a Plea Agreement and the attendant Sentence upon Plea Agreement are final and not amenable to appeal, except on basis of the extent or legality of the sentence, for which limited grounds the Accused has fourteen (14) days within which to exercise his right to appeal
p. 11Finality and limited appealability of plea-agreement judgment and sentence

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the criminal case number of the matter; the case number field is filled from contextual description only.

minor

The judgment contains recurring typographical errors rendering 'offence' as 'ofience' and 'effect' as 'efiect' throughout, including in quoted passages.

minor

Count I particulars state the Accused stated 'that the Graduation Booklet of the 17th Graduation held on 17th December bears his name' without a year, an apparent internal omission.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Were (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E008 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 115 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Milimani Anti-Corruption Court, Plea Agreement and Sentence). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/115/eng@2025-05-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.