1. The Accused, Abraham Tanui Kipkoech, is charged with Murder, Contrary to
Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that
he murdered Grace Namarome Aidah [deceased] on the 16
th December 2021 at
Kamng’anio Village Chesumei Nandi County. The prosecution case against him
was based on the fact that the deceased was an employee of Esther
Chepkemboi Rugut [PW1] and her husband, one Stephen Rugut and on the
material date she [deceased] was left on duty at her employers’ farm house as
the two proceeded on their own frolics only to later learn that the dead body of
their employee was found within their homestead.
2. A report was made to the police who arrived at the scene led by CIP Ndirangu
[PW6] and removed the dead body to the mortuary at Kapsabet hospital where it
was identified by the deceaseds son, Lortam Tsebi [PW2], for Post mortem
purposes. Earlier on the material date at about 10:00am the son had spoken to
the deceased who informed him of a sick nephew. He [PW2] then sent his son
to collect and take the sick nephew to hospital, but the son Tony Kibet [PW8] did
not find the deceased at the scene when he went there in the afternoon hours.
He was told by the nephew [actually niece] that the deceased had been called out
by a certain person.
3. Tony [PW8] called the deceased on her phone, but it was in her house, yet she
worked at the homestead of Esther [PW1]. He went looking for her but in vain.
He later took the sick child to his father [PW2] and at about 7:00pm learnt that
somebody had been killed at the homestead of Esther [PW1]. He was shocked
on the following day to learn that the person killed was the deceased, his
grandmother. The matter was reported to the police and the Accused was
arrested as the suspect murderer of his [PW8] grandmother.
4. Tony [PW8] had on the material date carried the Accused on his motor cycle taxi
[boda-boda] and dropped him along the way near a primary school from where he
proceeded for work at the home of Esther [PW1] even as he [PW8] proceeded
with his journey to the deceased’s house nearby. However, on his way back he
[PW8] l spotted two bags of maize on the roadside near the home of Esther
[PW1] and a few metres away saw the Accused talking to Andrew Tenai [PW9].
The Accused beckoned him to step and he did so. He [Accused] then boarded
Tony’s motor cycle and sat on top of timber being transported by Tony for a
customer.
He [Accused] however, boarded another motor cycle on the way and returned to
where he had been collected by Tony [PW8].
5. Andrew [PW9] was a member of the local Nyumba-Kumi vigilante group when he
spotted a stranger in the person of the Accused in the neighbourhood. He talked
to the Accused who told him that he was a maize dealer and had purchased
some maize from one Mzee Maina who happened to be the father of Andrew.
He [Accused] said that he was looking for a motor cycle to transport the
purchased maize and as Andrew entered his house the Accused went away on a
motor cycle carrying bags of maize. In the meantime, Andrew learnt from his
father that he [father] did not sell any maize to anybody. He also learnt at about
7:00pm that the maize store of his neighbour called Magut had been broken into
and some bags of maize stolen from therein. He further learnt that the dead
body of a woman [deceased] had been found in Magut’s farm.
6. Sgt. Simon Sopia [PW7], investigated the case and after recording statements
from witnesses arrested and treated the Accused as the prime suspect in the
murder of the deceased. Among the witnesses were Shadrack Tirop Too
[PW3] and William Kimeli [PW4] both of whom spotted the Accused at the
material scene on the material date.
7. Shadrack [PW3] saw the Accused enter the homestead of the deceased’s
employer [PW1] and William [PW4] saw the Accused walking with the deceased
within the homestead.
Dr. Evans Kibiwott [PW5], performed the postmortem on the body of the
deceased and compiled the necessary report. [P. Exhibit 1] showing that the
cause of injury was severe head injury due to an act of assault with a sharp
object.
This implied that the deceased was attacked and fatally injured by an individual
person or persons.
8. The defence case was a denial of any criminal responsibility by the Accused in
the death of the deceased. He implied that he was an innocent employee of a
sawdust dealer called Chege and that he was arrested without good cause while
in the process of executing his lawful duty.
He denied having met the deceased on the material date and maintained that he
did not kill her.
9. Both the prosecution and defence cases as supported by the evidence availed
from both sides raises no particular dispute with causation of the death of the
deceased. There was sufficient and undisputed evidence that the deceased was
attacked and fatally injured in a manner suggesting that the Assailant had a clear
intention to occasion grievous harm upon her and terminate her life so as to bear
no witness to the theft of farm produce from her employer’s farm.
10. The basic issue for determination was therefore on the question of the
identification of the Accused as the killer Assailant. He denied the fact thereby
placing upon the prosecution the burden of disproving his denial and proving
beyond reasonable doubt that he was actually the offender and none other
person.
Indeed, the legal burden to prove a charge against an Accused Person lies with
the prosecution upon a standard which is beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Herein, there was no direct evidence against the Accused. None of the
witnesses saw him in the act of assaulting and fatally injuring the deceased.
However, there was evidence that he was within the vicinity and even within the
homestead of Esther [PW1] where the deceased worked as a domestic worker.
He was innocently dropped there by the deceased’s grandson [PW8] who again
saw him with two bags of maize. He told and lied to a member of the local
vigilante group [PW9] that he had purchased the maize from the member’s
father. The actual owner of the maize [PW1] indicated that the maize had been
stolen from her store which was broken into.
12. All that was stated by Esther [PW1], Tony [PW8] and Andrew [PW9]
happened before and after the death of the deceased and none of them could
state with certainty at what juncture did the death of the deceased occur. But,
just prior to the death the Accused was seen entering the home of the deceased
employer by Shadrack [PW3] and was seen within the homestead by William
[PW4] while walking with the deceased.
13. As shown by the aforementioned witnesses the circumstances accruing
before and after the death of the deceased raise a very strong inference that the
Accused was most likely than not the person who assaulted and fatally injured
the deceased with a view to concealing his identity as the thief of the maize
belonging to the deceased’s employer.
14. It could not therefore have been a coincidence that the Accused entered the
material homestead, met the deceased and walked away with two bags of maize
only for the deceased to be found murdered at a later stage. He was the last
person to have been seen with the deceased before she died.
What could be deduced from all the circumstances of the case was that the
Accused was the person who killed the deceased to the exclusion of any other
person.
15. Indeed, the Accused did not dispute his presence at the scene on the
material date before and after the death of the deceased. The circumstantial
evidence against him irresistibly pointed to his guilt rather than innocence. As
was held by the Court of Appeal in [Ahemed Abolfathi Mohammed & Another
[2018] KECA 743 [KLR], the guilt of an Accused Person can be proved by either
direct or circumstantial evidence which is evidence which enables a court to
deduce a particular fact from circumstances of facts that have been proved.
Such evidence can form a strong basis for proving the guilt of an Accused Person
just like direct evidence.
16. In this case the circumstances from which an inference of guilt can be
drawn against the Accused have been cogently and firmly established and do
have the tendency of pointing towards his guilt. In that way, his defence was
adequately disproved and discredited. This court is therefore satisfied not only
that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the Accused and
incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt of
the Accused but also that there are no co-existing circumstances which may tend
to weaken or destroy the inference of guilt [See, Mkendeshwo Vs. Republic
[2002] 1 KLR [461].
17. Ultimately, it is the finding of this court that the prosecution has discharged
its burden of proving the charge against the Accused beyond any reasonable
doubt. He is herein found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly.
Dated and Delivered this 2nd day of April, 2026
Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that
he murdered Grace Namarome Aidah [deceased] on the 16
th December 2021 at
Kamng’anio Village Chesumei Nandi County. The prosecution case against him
was based on the fact that the deceased was an employee of Esther
Chepkemboi Rugut [PW1] and her husband, one Stephen Rugut and on the
material date she [deceased] was left on duty at her employers’ farm house as
the two proceeded on their own frolics only to later learn that the dead body of
their employee was found within their homestead.
2. A report was made to the police who arrived at the scene led by CIP Ndirangu
[PW6] and removed the dead body to the mortuary at Kapsabet hospital where it
was identified by the deceaseds son, Lortam Tsebi [PW2], for Post mortem
purposes. Earlier on the material date at about 10:00am the son had spoken to
the deceased who informed him of a sick nephew. He [PW2] then sent his son
to collect and take the sick nephew to hospital, but the son Tony Kibet [PW8] did
not find the deceased at the scene when he went there in the afternoon hours.
He was told by the nephew [actually niece] that the deceased had been called out
by a certain person.
3. Tony [PW8] called the deceased on her phone, but it was in her house, yet she
worked at the homestead of Esther [PW1]. He went looking for her but in vain.
He later took the sick child to his father [PW2] and at about 7:00pm learnt that
somebody had been killed at the homestead of Esther [PW1]. He was shocked
on the following day to learn that the person killed was the deceased, his
grandmother. The matter was reported to the police and the Accused was
arrested as the suspect murderer of his [PW8] grandmother.
4. Tony [PW8] had on the material date carried the Accused on his motor cycle taxi
[boda-boda] and dropped him along the way near a primary school from where he
proceeded for work at the home of Esther [PW1] even as he [PW8] proceeded
with his journey to the deceased’s house nearby. However, on his way back he
[PW8] l spotted two bags of maize on the roadside near the home of Esther
[PW1] and a few metres away saw the Accused talking to Andrew Tenai [PW9].
The Accused beckoned him to step and he did so. He [Accused] then boarded
Tony’s motor cycle and sat on top of timber being transported by Tony for a
customer.
He [Accused] however, boarded another motor cycle on the way and returned to
where he had been collected by Tony [PW8].
5. Andrew [PW9] was a member of the local Nyumba-Kumi vigilante group when he
spotted a stranger in the person of the Accused in the neighbourhood. He talked
to the Accused who told him that he was a maize dealer and had purchased
some maize from one Mzee Maina who happened to be the father of Andrew.
He [Accused] said that he was looking for a motor cycle to transport the
purchased maize and as Andrew entered his house the Accused went away on a
motor cycle carrying bags of maize. In the meantime, Andrew learnt from his
father that he [father] did not sell any maize to anybody. He also learnt at about
7:00pm that the maize store of his neighbour called Magut had been broken into
and some bags of maize stolen from therein. He further learnt that the dead
body of a woman [deceased] had been found in Magut’s farm.
6. Sgt. Simon Sopia [PW7], investigated the case and after recording statements
from witnesses arrested and treated the Accused as the prime suspect in the
murder of the deceased. Among the witnesses were Shadrack Tirop Too
[PW3] and William Kimeli [PW4] both of whom spotted the Accused at the
material scene on the material date.
7. Shadrack [PW3] saw the Accused enter the homestead of the deceased’s
employer [PW1] and William [PW4] saw the Accused walking with the deceased
within the homestead.
Dr. Evans Kibiwott [PW5], performed the postmortem on the body of the
deceased and compiled the necessary report. [P. Exhibit 1] showing that the
cause of injury was severe head injury due to an act of assault with a sharp
object.
This implied that the deceased was attacked and fatally injured by an individual
person or persons.
8. The defence case was a denial of any criminal responsibility by the Accused in
the death of the deceased. He implied that he was an innocent employee of a
sawdust dealer called Chege and that he was arrested without good cause while
in the process of executing his lawful duty.
He denied having met the deceased on the material date and maintained that he
did not kill her.
9. Both the prosecution and defence cases as supported by the evidence availed
from both sides raises no particular dispute with causation of the death of the
deceased. There was sufficient and undisputed evidence that the deceased was
attacked and fatally injured in a manner suggesting that the Assailant had a clear
intention to occasion grievous harm upon her and terminate her life so as to bear
no witness to the theft of farm produce from her employer’s farm.
10. The basic issue for determination was therefore on the question of the
identification of the Accused as the killer Assailant. He denied the fact thereby
placing upon the prosecution the burden of disproving his denial and proving
beyond reasonable doubt that he was actually the offender and none other
person.
Indeed, the legal burden to prove a charge against an Accused Person lies with
the prosecution upon a standard which is beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Herein, there was no direct evidence against the Accused. None of the
witnesses saw him in the act of assaulting and fatally injuring the deceased.
However, there was evidence that he was within the vicinity and even within the
homestead of Esther [PW1] where the deceased worked as a domestic worker.
He was innocently dropped there by the deceased’s grandson [PW8] who again
saw him with two bags of maize. He told and lied to a member of the local
vigilante group [PW9] that he had purchased the maize from the member’s
father. The actual owner of the maize [PW1] indicated that the maize had been
stolen from her store which was broken into.
12. All that was stated by Esther [PW1], Tony [PW8] and Andrew [PW9]
happened before and after the death of the deceased and none of them could
state with certainty at what juncture did the death of the deceased occur. But,
just prior to the death the Accused was seen entering the home of the deceased
employer by Shadrack [PW3] and was seen within the homestead by William
[PW4] while walking with the deceased.
13. As shown by the aforementioned witnesses the circumstances accruing
before and after the death of the deceased raise a very strong inference that the
Accused was most likely than not the person who assaulted and fatally injured
the deceased with a view to concealing his identity as the thief of the maize
belonging to the deceased’s employer.
14. It could not therefore have been a coincidence that the Accused entered the
material homestead, met the deceased and walked away with two bags of maize
only for the deceased to be found murdered at a later stage. He was the last
person to have been seen with the deceased before she died.
What could be deduced from all the circumstances of the case was that the
Accused was the person who killed the deceased to the exclusion of any other
person.
15. Indeed, the Accused did not dispute his presence at the scene on the
material date before and after the death of the deceased. The circumstantial
evidence against him irresistibly pointed to his guilt rather than innocence. As
was held by the Court of Appeal in [Ahemed Abolfathi Mohammed & Another
[2018] KECA 743 [KLR], the guilt of an Accused Person can be proved by either
direct or circumstantial evidence which is evidence which enables a court to
deduce a particular fact from circumstances of facts that have been proved.
Such evidence can form a strong basis for proving the guilt of an Accused Person
just like direct evidence.
16. In this case the circumstances from which an inference of guilt can be
drawn against the Accused have been cogently and firmly established and do
have the tendency of pointing towards his guilt. In that way, his defence was
adequately disproved and discredited. This court is therefore satisfied not only
that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the Accused and
incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt of
the Accused but also that there are no co-existing circumstances which may tend
to weaken or destroy the inference of guilt [See, Mkendeshwo Vs. Republic
[2002] 1 KLR [461].
17. Ultimately, it is the finding of this court that the prosecution has discharged
its burden of proving the charge against the Accused beyond any reasonable
doubt. He is herein found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly.
Dated and Delivered this 2nd day of April, 2026