Sharon Otieno’s Family Seeks Justice, Compensation and Fulfilment of Obado’s Alleged Promises
The family of murdered Rongo University student Sharon Otieno has told the High Court it would consider supporting a non-custodial sentence for former Migori Governor Okoth Obado if he fulfils commitments allegedly made to Sharon before her death.
In a Victim Impact Statement filed as part of the probation process ahead of sentencing, the family asked Obado to provide the land, house and vehicle that Sharon was allegedly promised, as well as continue supporting her surviving children. The family has also sought reimbursement for legal and related expenses incurred during the nearly eight-year murder proceedings.
The demands place an unusual condition at the centre of the sentencing debate: whether material commitments allegedly made before Sharon’s death can now form part of a reconciliation process following a murder conviction.
Sharon, 26, was a student at Rongo University and was pregnant with her second child when she was killed in September 2018. Her body was later found in a thicket near Kodera Forest in Uriri, Homa Bay County.
Obado, together with former aides Michael Oyamo and Caspal Obiero, was convicted of Sharon’s murder and that of her unborn child. They are due to be sentenced by the High Court on September 16, 2026.
Promises revisited
The promises now cited by Sharon’s family were a recurring feature of the lengthy trial.
Prosecutors argued that Obado’s assurances concerning land and housing were not evidence of a genuine plan to provide for Sharon but part of an attempt to manage their relationship and delay a confrontation over her demands.
In her July 2026 judgment, Justice Cecilia Githua found that the promises to buy Sharon land and build her a house were part of a stalling tactic as a plan to eliminate her was being pursued.
Obado disputed that account during his defence. Testifying in April 2025, he acknowledged having an affair with Sharon but said the relationship was known to people close to him, including his wife and some county employees.
He told the court that his wife, Hellen Adhiambo, had offered Sharon accommodation in one of the family’s houses, although Obado said he rejected the idea because he did not intend to take Sharon as a second wife.
“We Have Mourned Enough”: Sharon Otieno’s Family Seeks Compensation, Houses for Her Children
The family has indicated that it has “mourned enough” and wants the focus to shift towards securing the welfare and future of Sharon’s children.https://t.co/irinWuI68j pic.twitter.com/NLVovWEjqs
— Uzalendo News (@UzalendoNews_KE) August 18, 2026
Obado also testified that negotiations over Sharon’s housing and land were conducted through an intermediary known as Muller. According to his account, Sharon rejected an offer of land in Homa Bay and instead wanted a 50-by-100-foot plot in Kisumu. Obado maintained that he had agreed to support the purchase of rural land and said he had also arranged medical cover for Sharon during her pregnancy.
A family still counting the cost
For Sharon’s family, however, the consequences of the murder have extended well beyond the courtroom.
The family told the court that it incurred substantial expenses attending proceedings over the years, including travel costs. It reportedly sold land and a cow to help finance its participation in the case and is now seeking compensation for those expenses.
The family’s position is significant because it does not simply ask the court for a severe punishment. Instead, it presents fulfilment of the alleged promises and continued support for Sharon’s children as part of a possible reconciliation with Obado.
That position raises difficult questions about the meaning of justice after a murder conviction. Financial assistance may address some of the practical hardships suffered by survivors, but it cannot restore Sharon or the child she was carrying.
ALSO READ: Tragedy Strikes Twice: Khalwale Family Mourns Sudden Loss of WIFE Gloria
Nor can a promise made during a relationship necessarily be treated as an enforceable obligation merely because it has resurfaced during sentencing. Whether the commitments have legal force, who is responsible for fulfilling them and what safeguards exist for Sharon’s children are questions that deserve careful scrutiny.
The sentencing question
Obado has separately asked the High Court to consider a non-custodial sentence.
The court will have to weigh that request against the gravity of the convictions, the circumstances surrounding Sharon’s killing, the probation report, the Victim Impact Statement and the parties’ submissions on sentencing.
The family’s willingness to consider leniency does not, by itself, determine the appropriate punishment. Sentencing remains a matter for the court, which must consider the interests of justice and the legal consequences of convictions for murder.
The case also illustrates the complicated distinction between reconciliation and accountability. A family may seek compensation, support and closure while still carrying the trauma of a killing that cannot be undone. Material restitution can help survivors rebuild their lives, but it does not erase criminal responsibility.
For Sharon’s children, the immediate concern may be more practical: whether the land, house, vehicle and financial support discussed in court will actually materialise.
That outcome may depend not only on the sentence handed down on September 16 but also on whether the commitments emerging from the reconciliation process are converted from assurances into concrete, enforceable arrangements.
After nearly eight years of litigation, the next chapter of Sharon Otieno’s case will therefore be about more than the length of Obado’s sentence. It will also test how Kenya’s justice system balances punishment, victims’ interests, restitution and reconciliation after a devastating crime.