The High Court has set November 27, 2026, as the date it will deliver sentence against former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and his two co-convicts over the murder of Sharon Otieno. Before then, Justice Cecilia Githua must weigh the defence mitigation, prosecution submissions, probation reports and victim-impact material placed before the court. The sentencing hearing followed the July 23 conviction of Obado, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero.
The central legal issue is not simply whether Kenya’s law permits a death sentence. It does. The Supreme Court’s Muruatetu decisions removed the mandatory character of the death penalty for murder, requiring an individualised sentencing process. The High Court therefore has to consider the circumstances of the offence and each convicted person’s circumstances before deciding the appropriate punishment.
Why November 27 matters
Justice Githua postponed the sentencing ruling after receiving oral and written submissions from the parties on September 16. The court said it would consider the material already filed, including probation reports, victim-impact statements, prosecution submissions and defence mitigation. The delay also coincides with the Judiciary’s annual leave period.
The November ruling will therefore be the product of a sentencing process rather than a second determination of guilt. The murder convictions have already been entered. The remaining question is the punishment to impose.
The three men were convicted of the murder of Sharon Otieno, a university student who was killed in 2018. In the July judgment, Justice Githua found each accused criminally responsible, with the court attributing different roles to the three men.
The legal framework: death is available, but not automatic
Kenya’s Penal Code provides the statutory death penalty for murder. But the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic declared the mandatory nature of that punishment unconstitutional. In 2021, the Supreme Court issued directions clarifying the scope of the decision and its application to murder under sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code.
That distinction is crucial to understanding Obado’s case.
The High Court is not required to impose death simply because the conviction is for murder. At the same time, Muruatetu did not abolish the death penalty for murder. Death remains legally available as a sentencing option where the court considers it justified by the circumstances.
The sentencing exercise consequently requires the judge to examine the particular facts rather than apply an automatic formula.
The factors before the judge
The Supreme Court’s sentencing guidance requires courts to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances in an individual case. Relevant considerations include the offender’s age, previous record, character, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, the circumstances of the offence and its impact on the victim’s family.
For Obado, several of those issues have already emerged publicly.
| Factor before the High Court | What has been presented in Obado’s case | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Circumstances of the offence | The court convicted Obado and two co-accused after the murder trial | The seriousness and circumstances of the offence are central to sentencing |
| Individual culpability | The July judgment made findings concerning the respective roles of the three convicts | Sentences must be considered individually |
| Age and health | Obado’s defence has cited his age and health in seeking leniency | Mitigating circumstances must be weighed against the offence |
| Previous convictions | Defence submissions have pointed to his lack of previous convictions | A clean record can be relevant mitigation |
| Length of proceedings | The defence has cited the nearly eight-year duration of the case | The judge must determine what weight, if any, the delay deserves |
| Victim impact | The court has received material concerning the impact of Sharon’s death on her family | The consequences for victims and their families are relevant to sentencing |
| Probation assessment | A pre-sentence report has reportedly recommended a non-custodial sentence | The report informs the court but does not bind the judge |
| Prosecution position | The DPP has argued for a punishment reflecting the gravity of the offence and opposed a non-custodial sentence | The prosecution’s submissions form part of the material the judge must evaluate |
Obado’s mitigation will be tested against the circumstances of the offence
Obado’s defence has asked the court for leniency, pointing to factors including his age, health and the length of time the case has taken. He was reported to be 64 when those submissions were made.
A pre-sentence report has also reportedly recommended a non-custodial sentence, citing factors including his age, health and absence of previous convictions. That recommendation is significant as part of the sentencing material, but it does not determine the outcome. The sentencing decision belongs to the High Court.
The court must also consider the prosecution’s response. On September 16, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Gikui Gichuhi argued that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and serve the purposes of justice, deterrence and public confidence.
The competing submissions therefore give the judge two different aspects of the sentencing exercise to reconcile: the individual circumstances advanced in mitigation and the seriousness of the crime established at trial.
Sharon Otieno’s family’s views are relevant—but do not decide the sentence
One of the unusual features of the September hearing was the position expressed by Sharon Otieno’s mother, Melida Auma, who asked the court not to imprison Obado and supported a non-custodial sentence. Reports said she told the court that the family had forgiven him.
The prosecution nevertheless opposed a non-custodial sentence, arguing that the family’s position could not erase the circumstances of the offence or determine the punishment.
Legally, that distinction matters. A victim or victim’s family can provide important information about the impact of an offence and express their views, but sentencing remains a judicial function. The judge must consider the relevant material within the applicable sentencing principles rather than simply adopt one party’s preferred punishment.
The three convicts may not receive identical sentences
Although Obado, Oyamo and Obiero were convicted in the same case, the sentencing process does not require the court to impose identical punishments.
Individual culpability is important. The July judgment made findings about the respective roles attributed to the three men, including findings concerning Obado’s involvement and the roles played by Oyamo and Obiero.
That means the November ruling is likely to require separate consideration of the circumstances of each accused. Mitigation presented by one convict does not automatically apply to the others, just as an aggravating circumstance specific to one person should not automatically determine another person’s sentence.
What the judge must decide before November 27
The sentencing decision can be understood through several connected questions.
First, what aggravating circumstances have been established? The judge must assess the seriousness of the offence in light of the evidence and findings already made at trial.
Second, what mitigating circumstances have been demonstrated for each convict? Assertions concerning age, health, remorse, previous record and other personal circumstances must be weighed according to the evidence before the court.
Third, what does the victim-impact material show? The consequences of Sharon’s death for her family form part of the sentencing picture.
Fourth, what weight should be attached to the probation reports? Such reports can assist the court in assessing an offender’s circumstances and rehabilitation prospects, but the final sentencing decision remains with the judge.
Finally, what sentence is proportionate to the circumstances after all those factors have been considered? That is where the court’s discretion under the post-Muruatetu framework becomes decisive.
What cannot be assumed before the ruling
Several conclusions would be premature before November 27.
A non-custodial recommendation does not guarantee that Obado will avoid prison. Conversely, the prosecution’s call for a severe punishment does not guarantee a death sentence.
Nor does the existence of the death penalty in section 204 mean that death is automatic. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence requires an individualised sentencing process.
The family’s request for forgiveness likewise does not legally settle the matter. It is one part of the material available to the court.
The most important development to watch on November 27 will therefore be the judge’s reasoning: which aggravating and mitigating circumstances the High Court accepts, how it weighs them against each other, and how those findings translate into individual sentences for Obado, Oyamo and Obiero. That reasoning will matter beyond this case because it will show how Kenya’s courts are applying the post-Muruatetu approach to a major murder conviction in which the death penalty remains legally available but is no longer mandatory.