A Marsabit father’s request to have his son jailed after repeated attempts to reform him failed has been upheld by the High Court.
Justice Francis Rayola Olel dismissed Hassan Molu Kuno’s appeal against his conviction and 10-year prison sentence for threatening to kill his father, leaving the sentence imposed by the trial court intact.
Kuno was charged with threatening to kill contrary to Section 223(1) of the Penal Code after he threatened Molu Kuno Sora on January 3, 2026, at Nagayo Location in Marsabit Central Sub-County.
According to the judgement, the prosecution told the trial court that Sora was at his home when Kuno entered his miraa farm.
When asked to leave, Kuno allegedly pursued his father while armed with a rungu and a knife.
The complainant fled and reported the incident to police.
Kuno initially pleaded not guilty when he appeared before the court on January 6, 2026. However, when the case came up for hearing on March 2, he asked for the charge sheet to be read to him again.
"The charge was read out to him in Kiswahili, a language he understood, and he responded, "Ni kweli" (It is true). The trial court then proceeded to enter a plea of guilty," part of the judgement reads.
The prosecution then gave the facts of the case, which Kuno again admitted were true.
During mitigation, he asked the court for forgiveness, saying, “Naomba msamaha” (I pray for forgiveness).
The prosecution asked for a custodial sentence, citing an unfavourable social inquiry report.
The report showed that Kuno’s family had made several attempts to help him change his behaviour, but the efforts had not succeeded.
Among the measures taken by the family was relocating him to Moyale in an attempt to rehabilitate him.
However, the report stated that the efforts had been unsuccessful and described Kuno as a habitual offender since his teenage years.
It also attributed the worsening of his behaviour to drug abuse.
His father, who was the complainant in the case, told authorities that he feared for his safety and asked that his son be jailed.
The report further indicated that the family was not prepared to forgive Kuno, having tried several measures to help him reform.
"Having considered the social inquiry report and the sentiments of the complainant, the trial magistrate sentenced the Appellant to serve ten (10) years in prison," court records show.
Aggrieved by the decision, Kuno challenged both his conviction and sentence before the High Court, arguing that the trial court had failed to exercise sufficient caution before convicting him on a guilty plea.
He also argued that the consequences of pleading guilty had not been explained to him and that the 10-year sentence was harsh and excessive.
Justice Olel, however, found that the plea-taking procedure had complied with the law.
The judge noted that the charge and particulars had been explained to Kuno in a language he understood and that he had admitted both the charge and the facts presented by the prosecution.
“The provisions of section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code were thus complied with and prima facie, the plea of guilty by the appellant was unequivocal,” the judge held.
The High Court also declined to interfere with the sentence, noting that an appellate court should only do so where a sentence is manifestly excessive or where the trial court overlooked a material factor, considered an irrelevant factor or acted on a wrong principle.
Justice Olel found that the sentence was provided for by law and was justified by the circumstances of the case.
“The sentence passed is statutorily provided for and when the same is considered against the background circumstances herein, I do find that the sentence passed against the Appellant is not excessive, since his conduct merits a deterrent sentence,” the judge ruled.
The court consequently dismissed Kuno’s appeal against both conviction and sentence.
He has 14 days to appeal against the High Court decision.
