The High Court of Kenya has dismissed an appeal by Hassan Molu Kuno against his conviction and 10-year prison sentence for threatening to kill his father, Molu Kuno Sora. According to court records, Kuno had threatened his father on January 3, 2026, at Nagayo Location in Marsabit Central Sub-County. The prosecution told the trial court that Sora was at his home when Kuno entered his miraa farm and, when asked to leave, allegedly pursued his father while armed with a rungu and a knife.
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, "It is true." The trial court then proceeded to enter a plea of guilty. The prosecution gave the facts of the case, which Kuno again admitted were true. During mitigation, he asked the court for forgiveness.
A social inquiry report showed that Kuno's family had made several attempts to help him change his behavior, 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 behavior to drug abuse. His father told authorities that he feared for his safety and asked that his son be jailed.
The trial magistrate sentenced Kuno to serve 10 years in prison, considering the social inquiry report and the sentiments of the complainant. 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.
High Court Judge Francis Rayola Olel 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 judge held that the provisions of section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code were thus complied with and prima facie, the plea of guilty by Kuno was unequivocal.
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 court consequently dismissed Kuno's appeal against both conviction and sentence.
Kuno has 14 days to appeal against the High Court decision. The court's decision brings to an end a case that had its roots in failed attempts by Kuno's family to reform him. The case highlights the challenges faced by families in dealing with habitual offenders and the need for more effective rehabilitation programs.
Key points
- The High Court upheld a 10-year prison sentence for a man who threatened to kill his father.
- The man's family had made several attempts to help him change his behavior, but the efforts had not succeeded.
- The court found that the sentence was provided for by law and was justified by the circumstances of the case.
