Former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and his two co-convicts, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero, are scheduled to return to the High Court on November 27, 2026, for sentencing following their convictions over the murder of Sharon Otieno. Justice Cecilia Githua postponed the sentencing decision after hearing mitigation from the three men, submissions from the prosecution and representations from Sharon’s family on September 16. The court said it would consider the material filed by the parties, including mitigation and victim-related material, before determining the appropriate sentences.
The November hearing is therefore not another trial. The question of guilt has already been determined: the High Court convicted all three men on July 23, 2026, after finding that the prosecution had proved the murder case beyond reasonable doubt. What remains is sentencing—an exercise in which the judge must consider the circumstances of the offence, the individual circumstances of each convict, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the submissions placed before the court. The prosecution has sought the death penalty, while Obado’s defence has asked for leniency; Sharon’s parents have asked the court to consider a non-custodial sentence for Obado.
November 27 is about punishment, not guilt
The distinction between conviction and sentencing is essential to understanding what will happen in court.
The July judgment answered the central criminal question: whether the evidence established the accused persons’ responsibility for the murder to the required standard. The sentencing hearing addresses a different question—what punishment should follow the convictions?
That means the court is not expected to reopen the entire evidentiary case simply because the parties have presented new arguments during mitigation.
Instead, Justice Githua will consider the sentencing material and the submissions made after conviction.
The case has already taken nearly eight years to reach this stage. The murder occurred in September 2018, while the convictions were delivered in July 2026. The sentencing process adds another step before the case moves, potentially, into the appellate phase.
What the court has before it
Several categories of information are relevant to the sentencing decision.
| Material before the court | What it can help the court assess |
|---|---|
| Prosecution submissions | Aggravating circumstances and the punishment sought by the State |
| Defence mitigation | Personal circumstances and factors the convicts ask the court to consider |
| Victim-impact material | The consequences of Sharon’s death for her family |
| Pre-sentence/probation reports | Information about the convicts and their circumstances relevant to sentencing |
| Time spent in custody | The period already spent in custody before sentencing |
| Evidence from the trial | Circumstances of the offence and the individual roles established by the judgment |
Justice Githua specifically said the court would retire to consider what had been raised during the September hearing, together with written mitigation and other material filed by the parties.
That means November 27 is likely to be a reasoned sentencing decision rather than simply an announcement of a predetermined punishment.
The prosecution is asking for the maximum punishment
The Director of Public Prosecutions has urged the High Court to impose the death penalty on Obado, Oyamo and Obiero.
The State’s position is that the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances established during the trial justify the maximum punishment available under the murder law. Prosecutors have also argued that sentencing should take account of deterrence, accountability and public confidence in the administration of justice.
That is the prosecution’s submission, not the court’s conclusion.
The judge remains responsible for determining the appropriate sentence after considering the law and all relevant circumstances.
Obado’s defence is asking for leniency
Obado’s defence has presented mitigation seeking a sentence that would avoid imprisonment.
Reports from the September hearing indicate that his lawyers relied on factors including his age, personal circumstances and the length of the proceedings. His pre-sentence material has also been placed before the court.
The defence position must be distinguished from the prosecution’s account of the offence. A mitigation submission is an argument about punishment after conviction; it does not reverse or alter the finding of guilt.
Obado has also maintained his denial of involvement in the killing, according to reporting on the pre-sentence proceedings.
Sharon Otieno’s parents have asked for a different outcome
One of the most significant developments before sentencing has been the position taken by Sharon’s parents.
Douglas Otieno and Melinda Auma told the court that they had forgiven Obado and asked that he not receive a custodial sentence. The family has cited reconciliation and Obado’s reported efforts to reach out through relatives.
Their position does not determine the sentence.
The prosecution has argued that reconciliation cannot erase the circumstances of the offence and that the State retains responsibility for pursuing criminal accountability.
The competing positions illustrate an important feature of criminal sentencing: the victim’s family can be heard without acquiring the authority to decide the punishment.
The September proceedings also highlighted the practical meaning of victim participation. Sharon’s parents requested a Dholuo interpreter because they did not understand English well enough to address the court directly. The hearing was briefly adjourned while an interpreter was obtained.
For a broader examination of what the case has meant for Sharon’s family and the role of victims after conviction, the discussion of justice for victims’ families in the Sharon Otieno case can be considered alongside the sentencing proceedings.
What Kenya’s murder sentencing framework allows
Kenya’s murder law must be read together with constitutional sentencing jurisprudence.
Section 204 of the Penal Code provides for the death penalty for murder. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic held that the mandatory nature of the death sentence for murder was unconstitutional because it prevented courts from considering individual circumstances.
The Supreme Court later clarified the scope of its decision and confirmed that Muruatetu concerns murder under Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code. The death penalty therefore remains legally available, but it is not an automatic consequence of every murder conviction.
This leaves the High Court with a sentencing decision requiring consideration of the particular circumstances before it.
Possible outcomes within the legal framework include a death sentence, life imprisonment, a determinate custodial sentence or, where legally appropriate after consideration of the circumstances, a non-custodial sentence.
It would be premature to attach a particular probability to any of these outcomes.
Why the individual roles of the three convicts matter
The November decision concerns three separate people, even though they were convicted in the same case.
A sentencing court can consider the individual culpability and circumstances of each offender. The prosecution itself has asked the court to examine the respective roles of Obado, Oyamo and Obiero rather than treating them as indistinguishable.
That means the eventual sentences do not necessarily have to be identical.
The July conviction established the court’s findings concerning their participation. The sentencing process now allows the court to consider those findings alongside each individual’s mitigation and other relevant material.
The eight-year delay will form part of the sentencing context
The extraordinary duration of the proceedings is likely to remain an important contextual issue.
The case began with Sharon’s killing in September 2018 and reached conviction in July 2026. The defence can draw the court’s attention to the time the accused have spent within the criminal justice system, while the prosecution can point to the seriousness and circumstances of the offence.
There is, however, no simple formula by which eight years of proceedings automatically translate into a particular reduction in sentence.
The court must determine what weight, if any, the period spent in custody and other circumstances should receive under the applicable law.
This distinction matters because public discussion of sentencing can easily turn into arithmetic before the court has actually made its findings.
What happens inside court on November 27?
The precise format will depend on the court, but the essential event is straightforward: Justice Githua is expected to deliver the sentencing ruling at the Milimani Law Courts.
The court has already heard the principal mitigation and sentencing submissions. It now has to assess the material before it and explain the sentence imposed on each convict.
The ruling should therefore be read for its reasoning as well as its headline outcome.
Key issues to watch include:
- how the court treats the prosecution’s request for the death penalty;
- how it evaluates the mitigating circumstances presented by the defence;
- the weight given to Sharon’s family’s representations;
- how the court treats the individual roles of the three convicts;
- whether the court addresses the period spent in custody;
- and the legal basis for whatever sentence is ultimately imposed.
The sentence may not be the end of the case
Even after sentencing, the legal process may continue.
A High Court criminal conviction and sentence can be challenged through the appellate system where the law permits. Any appeal would raise questions determined by the relevant appellate court and could affect the ultimate legal position.
That makes it important to distinguish between the sentence announced on November 27 and the final outcome of the entire case.
The sentencing date is nevertheless a major procedural milestone. After years of evidence, adjournments and legal arguments, the court will move from determining responsibility to determining punishment.
What November 27 will really clarify
The most important information to emerge on November 27 will not simply be the number of years, if any, attached to a custodial sentence. It will be the reasoning behind the court’s decision.
The Sharon Otieno case has brought together competing principles that the sentencing court must reconcile: the seriousness of a murder conviction, individual culpability, mitigation, the consequences for the victim’s family, the State’s interest in criminal accountability and the constitutional requirement for a lawful and reasoned sentencing process.
The court has now been given those competing submissions. On November 27, Justice Githua is expected to explain how the law applies to them and announce the sentences for Obado, Oyamo and Obiero. **Until that ruling is delivered, any claim that Obado will receive a particular punishment or spend a particular number of years in prison remains speculation rather than an established fact.**