A. Introduction
1. Alex Ayata Migosi, the accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), is charged with three counts of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that, on 14th November 2023 at Nyaoora Sub-Location in Marani Sub-County, Kisii County, he murdered Edna Moraa Nyairo in Count I, Quinter Kemunto Omuga in Count II, and Dismas Mark Omuga in Count III.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty on each count. The prosecution called a total of 7 witnesses before closing its case. At the close of the prosecution case, the court found that the accused had a case to answer in the three counts and placed him on his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He elected to adduce sworn evidence and called no witnesses.
B. The Prosecution Case
3. PW1, Lydia Kerubo Benard, was a neighbour of both the deceased's family and the accused and had known the accused for about three years. She testified that on 14th November 2023 at about 11.00 a.m., she was harvesting beans with PW2, Risper Bosibori Ndege. As she returned home, she heard a bang like something had fallen near the fence, and saw Edna Moraa Nyairo lying on the ground by the fence.
4. PW1 called PW2, and they proceeded towards Edna’s homestead. She further testified that she saw the accused cut Quinter Kemunto Omuga on the head with a panga and Dismas Mark Omuga on the neck. The accused then chased the witnesses away. Edna was lying nearby and bleeding from the back of the neck. PW1 and PW2 fled, and when they returned, they noted that all three victims had died. On cross-examination, PW1 maintained that she beheld the attack through the fence but did not see the accused inflict the injury upon Edna.
5. PW2, Risper Bosibori Ndege, confirmed the account of PW1. She testified that she rushed to Edna’s homestead after hearing a bang and found Edna lying on the ground with a cut at the back of her head. Quinter was also lying down, and Dismas had a cut on the neck. PW2 stated that she saw the accused cut Dismas on the neck and that no other person was present in the homestead at the material time. She identified the panga produced as PExh. 1 as belonging to the accused’s family, explaining that she had previously borrowed and used it and recognised it by its black rubber handle and the welded part.
6. PW3, Sarah Nyamite, testified that at about noon she heard screams from the direction of the accused’s brother’s homestead. She met PW4, Rael Magoma Ogero, and the two followed the screams. They encountered the accused coming from that direction while carrying a blood-stained panga. They proceeded to the homestead and found Edna and her two children lying on the ground with severe cut injuries. PW3 did not witness the actual assault.
7. PW4, Rael Magoma Ogero, similarly testified that she heard repeated screams at about noon and joined PW3. She saw the accused approaching them while carrying a panga which appeared blood-stained. At the homestead, she found Edna still alive but gravely injured, while the two children were already dead. PW4 also did not witness the actual assault.
8. PW5, Patrick Omuga Migosi, was the accused’s brother, Edna’s husband and the father of Quinter and Dismas. He testified that on the material morning he left home to graze cattle. At about 11.20 a.m. he received a call informing him that his brother had attacked his wife and children. He hurried home and found Edna and the children lying outside the house. Edna attempted to speak but died shortly thereafter. PW5 also testified that, three days earlier, he had quarrelled with the accused after the accused had cut down a shed and pricked him on the back with a tester. According to PW5, the hostility related to a dispute over entitlement to family land.
9. PW6, PC Christine Opondo, the investigating officer, visited the scene on 14th November 2023 and found the three deceased persons lying outside the house with deep cut wounds to the head and neck. She testified that the accused surrendered himself at Rioma Police Station later that evening. On the following day, the police recovered a panga from a fence at the home of Obina Ochoi. PW6 produced the panga as PExh. 1. On cross-examination, she conceded that no DNA analysis was conducted on the panga.
10. PW6 was subsequently recalled and by consent, she produced the post-mortem reports prepared by Dr Naomi Ariaga. The cause of death of Edna Moraa Nyairo was found to be head injury due to sharp-force trauma. Quinter Kemunto Omuga, aged about four years, died from a head injury due to sharp-force trauma with a complicated skull fracture. Dismas Mark Omuga, aged about three years, died from a fracture of the C2 vertebra with complete transection of the spinal cord due to sharp-force trauma.
11. PW7, CIP Florian Wamalwa, a retired police officer, had recorded a statement under charge along with caution from the accused. The prosecution sought to introduce that statement as a confession. This court conducted a trial within a trial, and on 16th October 2025 it ruled that the statement was inadmissible because the safeguards in Article 50(2)(g) of the Constitution and the Evidence (Out of Court Confessions) Rules, 2009 had not been complied with. That ruling remains undisturbed, and the statement has not been considered herein.
C. The Defence Case
12. The accused (DW1) adduced sworn evidence. He described himself as a charcoal burner residing at Nyabuogi. He testified that on the material day he left for work in the morning and returned in the evening. When he was about 200 metres from home, he met Pauline, Rael and Sarah, who told him that his brother was being sought and that his house was on fire. He then went to Rioma Police Station to report the matter, where he was informed that he was the person being sought and he was arrested.
13. Upon being cross-examined by prosecution counsel, the accused was firm that he did not know why he had been arrested.
D. Submissions and Issues for Determination
14. In their written submissions dated 23rd March 2026, learned counsel for the accused urged the Court to find that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel emphasised that no witness saw the accused attack Edna, that the panga was not subjected to DNA analysis, and that the evidence did not displace the accused’s defence.
15. I have thoroughly considered the entire record, the defence and the submissions; the issues for determination are whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt:
a) the deaths of the three deceased persons and their respective causes;
b) that the accused is the one who committed the unlawful acts which caused those deaths; and
c) that the unlawful acts were accompanied by malice aforethought.
E. The Applicable Law
16. Section 203 of the Penal Code provides:
“Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.”
17. The burden remains throughout upon the prosecution to prove each ingredient beyond reasonable doubt. An accused person bears no burden to establish innocence. In Anthony Ndegwa Ngari v Republic [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal restated the three essential elements of murder as the fact and cause of death, proof that the accused committed the unlawful act which caused the death, and malice aforethought.
F. Analysis and Evaluation
i. Whether the deaths and their causes were proved
18. The deaths of Edna Moraa Nyairo, Quinter Kemunto Omuga and Dismas Mark Omuga were not disputed. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 saw their bodies at the scene. The post-mortem reports were produced by consent and established that all three died from sharp-force injuries. I am satisfied that the prosecution proved the fact and cause of death in each count.
ii. Whether the accused caused the deaths
19. The prosecution’s case relating to Counts II and III is founded principally upon direct visual evidence. PW1 and PW2 said they had known the accused for several years as a neighbour; their evidence was evidence of recognition rather than identification of a stranger. It is trite law that recognition is generally more reliable, although the Court must still examine the circumstances carefully, as even in cases of recognition the witnesses can be mistaken.
20. As regards Count II, PW1 testified that she saw the accused cut Quinter on the head with a panga. The incident occurred in broad daylight, at close range, and during a continuing episode which PW1 observed through the fence. This was not displaced on cross-examination.
21. As regards Count III, both PW1 and PW2 testified that they saw the accused cut Dismas on the neck.
22. The accused raised an alibi by asserting that he was away at work throughout the day and returned only in the evening.
23. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 was consistent on the fact that the accused was the assailant. Any variation concerning the precise sequence of events or exact point of impact was minor and understandable in view of the speed and traumatic nature of the attack. It did not go to the root of the reliability of their recognition evidence.
24. PW3 and PW4 did not witness the actual assault. Their evidence nevertheless provides important independent context. They met the accused coming from the direction of the homestead while carrying a panga which appeared blood-stained a very short time after hearing the screams. I have, however, placed no reliance on the words which PW3 and PW4 attributed to the accused concerning the killing of three persons, as such words would amount to a confession or an admission tending to the proof of guilt and were not received in accordance with section 25A of the Evidence Act. PW3 and PW4's independent observations remain relevant even without those words.
25. On Count I, relating to Edna Moraa Nyairo, no witness saw the accused inflict the fatal wound upon her. Count 1 thus rests on circumstantial evidence. The applicable test on circumstantial evidence was settled in the case of Abanga alias Onyango v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1990 (UR). The Court of Appeal held that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be cogently and firmly established, must point unerringly towards the accused, and must cumulatively form a complete chain leaving no reasonable conclusion other than that the accused committed the offence. The Court must also exclude any co-existing circumstances capable of weakening or destroying that inference: Simon Musoke v Republic [1958] EA 715.
26. I have carefully weighed the prosecution case, the defence of alibi raised by the accused and the circumstances of this case. An accused who raises an alibi assumes no burden of proving it. It is sufficient if the alibi raises a reasonable doubt. In the case of Kiarie v Republic [1984] (1984)KLR 739, it was held: “An alibi raises a specific defence and an accused person who puts forward an alibi as an answer to a charge does not in law thereby assume any burden of proving that answer, and it is sufficient if an alibi introduces into the mind of a court a doubt that is not unreasonable. In this case, the following circumstances were proved :
a) Edna was found mortally wounded at her homestead at the same time that the accused was seen attacking her two children with a panga ;
b) PW2 testified that no other person was present in the homestead at the material time;
c) all three victims sustained sharp-force injuries in one brief and continuous transaction;
d) the accused chased PW1 and PW2 away after they witnessed the attack upon the children;
e) immediately thereafter, PW3 and PW4 met the accused coming from the direction of the homestead while carrying a panga which appeared blood-stained; and
f) there was a recent violent dispute between the accused and PW5 arising from family land.
27. Taken cumulatively, those circumstances form a coherent and complete chain. They exclude a reasonable possibility that a third party attacked Edna and her children. There is clear evidence that the accused is the one who killed Quinter Kemunto Omuga and Dismas Mark Omuga, and circumstantial evidence pointing at him for the killing of Edna Moraa Nyairo. The alibi is displaced by the firm and credible recognition evidence of PW1 and PW2, which placed the accused at the homestead during the attack. It is also contradicted by PW3 and PW4, whom the accused himself named in his defence, and who testified that they encountered him at about noon coming from the direction of the scene while carrying the panga. Though the recovered panga was not subjected to forensic analysis, there is firm evidence from PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4 that they saw the accused with the panga, and PW1 and PW2 actually saw him attack Quinter and Dismas with the same. The omission is thus not fatal. The accused was thus properly placed at the scene of the murder of the three victims herein, and I hereby proceed to dismiss his alibi as false.
28. I therefore find beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the unlawful acts which caused the deaths of Edna Moraa Nyairo, Quinter Kemunto Omuga and Dismas Mark Omuga.
iii. Whether malice aforethought was proved
29. It is trite law that the offence of murder is not complete unless the act of killing (actus reus) is accompanied by mens rea (guilty mind ). Section 206 of the Penal Code provides, in material part, that malice aforethought is established by proof of an intention to cause death or grievous harm, or knowledge that the act causing death will probably cause death or grievous harm, notwithstanding indifference as to whether that consequence occurs.
30. In determining malice aforethought, the Court may consider the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the part of the body targeted, the nature and severity of the injuries, and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the attack: Tubere s/o Ochen v Republic [1945] 12 EACA 63.
31. The accused used a panga to violently strike the victims on the head, neck and upper spine, which are manifestly vulnerable parts of the body. The injuries included a complicated skull fracture and, in the case of Dismas, complete transection of the spinal cord. Two of the victims were very young children incapable of offering meaningful resistance. The choice of weapon, the parts of the body targeted and the devastating force of the injuries demonstrate an intention to kill or, at the very least, to cause grievous harm with knowledge that death would probably result.
32. The recent violent dispute between the accused and PW5 provides background to the attack. There also was no evidence of accident, lawful self-defence, provocation sufficient in law, or intoxication capable of negating intent. I am satisfied that malice aforethought was proved in respect of each count.
G. Disposition
33. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the prosecution has proved every element of the offence of murder against Alex Ayata Migosi beyond reasonable doubt in each of the three counts.
34. I accordingly proceed to convict the accused:
a) on Count I, for the murder of Edna Moraa Nyairo;
b) on Count II, for the murder of Quinter Kemunto Omuga; and
c) on Count III, for the murder of Dismas Mark Omuga,
each contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
17.9.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
In the presence of:
Accused
MR KOIMA for the Prosecution
MISS GOGI for the Accused
ONKUNDI- Court Assistant
Koima: We have no previous records for the accused.
Gogi: We seek a pre-sentence report before Mitigation.
Koima: I seek a date for victim impact statements.
Order: The accused shall remain in lawful custody pending sentence. The Probation and Aftercare Service shall file a pre-sentence report within twenty-one (21) days, after which the matter shall be mentioned for mitigation and sentence.
Mention on 10.10.26. Victims to be availed.
1. Alex Ayata Migosi, the accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), is charged with three counts of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that, on 14th November 2023 at Nyaoora Sub-Location in Marani Sub-County, Kisii County, he murdered Edna Moraa Nyairo in Count I, Quinter Kemunto Omuga in Count II, and Dismas Mark Omuga in Count III.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty on each count. The prosecution called a total of 7 witnesses before closing its case. At the close of the prosecution case, the court found that the accused had a case to answer in the three counts and placed him on his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He elected to adduce sworn evidence and called no witnesses.
B. The Prosecution Case
3. PW1, Lydia Kerubo Benard, was a neighbour of both the deceased's family and the accused and had known the accused for about three years. She testified that on 14th November 2023 at about 11.00 a.m., she was harvesting beans with PW2, Risper Bosibori Ndege. As she returned home, she heard a bang like something had fallen near the fence, and saw Edna Moraa Nyairo lying on the ground by the fence.
4. PW1 called PW2, and they proceeded towards Edna’s homestead. She further testified that she saw the accused cut Quinter Kemunto Omuga on the head with a panga and Dismas Mark Omuga on the neck. The accused then chased the witnesses away. Edna was lying nearby and bleeding from the back of the neck. PW1 and PW2 fled, and when they returned, they noted that all three victims had died. On cross-examination, PW1 maintained that she beheld the attack through the fence but did not see the accused inflict the injury upon Edna.
5. PW2, Risper Bosibori Ndege, confirmed the account of PW1. She testified that she rushed to Edna’s homestead after hearing a bang and found Edna lying on the ground with a cut at the back of her head. Quinter was also lying down, and Dismas had a cut on the neck. PW2 stated that she saw the accused cut Dismas on the neck and that no other person was present in the homestead at the material time. She identified the panga produced as PExh. 1 as belonging to the accused’s family, explaining that she had previously borrowed and used it and recognised it by its black rubber handle and the welded part.
6. PW3, Sarah Nyamite, testified that at about noon she heard screams from the direction of the accused’s brother’s homestead. She met PW4, Rael Magoma Ogero, and the two followed the screams. They encountered the accused coming from that direction while carrying a blood-stained panga. They proceeded to the homestead and found Edna and her two children lying on the ground with severe cut injuries. PW3 did not witness the actual assault.
7. PW4, Rael Magoma Ogero, similarly testified that she heard repeated screams at about noon and joined PW3. She saw the accused approaching them while carrying a panga which appeared blood-stained. At the homestead, she found Edna still alive but gravely injured, while the two children were already dead. PW4 also did not witness the actual assault.
8. PW5, Patrick Omuga Migosi, was the accused’s brother, Edna’s husband and the father of Quinter and Dismas. He testified that on the material morning he left home to graze cattle. At about 11.20 a.m. he received a call informing him that his brother had attacked his wife and children. He hurried home and found Edna and the children lying outside the house. Edna attempted to speak but died shortly thereafter. PW5 also testified that, three days earlier, he had quarrelled with the accused after the accused had cut down a shed and pricked him on the back with a tester. According to PW5, the hostility related to a dispute over entitlement to family land.
9. PW6, PC Christine Opondo, the investigating officer, visited the scene on 14th November 2023 and found the three deceased persons lying outside the house with deep cut wounds to the head and neck. She testified that the accused surrendered himself at Rioma Police Station later that evening. On the following day, the police recovered a panga from a fence at the home of Obina Ochoi. PW6 produced the panga as PExh. 1. On cross-examination, she conceded that no DNA analysis was conducted on the panga.
10. PW6 was subsequently recalled and by consent, she produced the post-mortem reports prepared by Dr Naomi Ariaga. The cause of death of Edna Moraa Nyairo was found to be head injury due to sharp-force trauma. Quinter Kemunto Omuga, aged about four years, died from a head injury due to sharp-force trauma with a complicated skull fracture. Dismas Mark Omuga, aged about three years, died from a fracture of the C2 vertebra with complete transection of the spinal cord due to sharp-force trauma.
11. PW7, CIP Florian Wamalwa, a retired police officer, had recorded a statement under charge along with caution from the accused. The prosecution sought to introduce that statement as a confession. This court conducted a trial within a trial, and on 16th October 2025 it ruled that the statement was inadmissible because the safeguards in Article 50(2)(g) of the Constitution and the Evidence (Out of Court Confessions) Rules, 2009 had not been complied with. That ruling remains undisturbed, and the statement has not been considered herein.
C. The Defence Case
12. The accused (DW1) adduced sworn evidence. He described himself as a charcoal burner residing at Nyabuogi. He testified that on the material day he left for work in the morning and returned in the evening. When he was about 200 metres from home, he met Pauline, Rael and Sarah, who told him that his brother was being sought and that his house was on fire. He then went to Rioma Police Station to report the matter, where he was informed that he was the person being sought and he was arrested.
13. Upon being cross-examined by prosecution counsel, the accused was firm that he did not know why he had been arrested.
D. Submissions and Issues for Determination
14. In their written submissions dated 23rd March 2026, learned counsel for the accused urged the Court to find that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel emphasised that no witness saw the accused attack Edna, that the panga was not subjected to DNA analysis, and that the evidence did not displace the accused’s defence.
15. I have thoroughly considered the entire record, the defence and the submissions; the issues for determination are whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt:
a) the deaths of the three deceased persons and their respective causes;
b) that the accused is the one who committed the unlawful acts which caused those deaths; and
c) that the unlawful acts were accompanied by malice aforethought.
E. The Applicable Law
16. Section 203 of the Penal Code provides:
“Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.”
17. The burden remains throughout upon the prosecution to prove each ingredient beyond reasonable doubt. An accused person bears no burden to establish innocence. In Anthony Ndegwa Ngari v Republic [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal restated the three essential elements of murder as the fact and cause of death, proof that the accused committed the unlawful act which caused the death, and malice aforethought.
F. Analysis and Evaluation
i. Whether the deaths and their causes were proved
18. The deaths of Edna Moraa Nyairo, Quinter Kemunto Omuga and Dismas Mark Omuga were not disputed. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 saw their bodies at the scene. The post-mortem reports were produced by consent and established that all three died from sharp-force injuries. I am satisfied that the prosecution proved the fact and cause of death in each count.
ii. Whether the accused caused the deaths
19. The prosecution’s case relating to Counts II and III is founded principally upon direct visual evidence. PW1 and PW2 said they had known the accused for several years as a neighbour; their evidence was evidence of recognition rather than identification of a stranger. It is trite law that recognition is generally more reliable, although the Court must still examine the circumstances carefully, as even in cases of recognition the witnesses can be mistaken.
20. As regards Count II, PW1 testified that she saw the accused cut Quinter on the head with a panga. The incident occurred in broad daylight, at close range, and during a continuing episode which PW1 observed through the fence. This was not displaced on cross-examination.
21. As regards Count III, both PW1 and PW2 testified that they saw the accused cut Dismas on the neck.
22. The accused raised an alibi by asserting that he was away at work throughout the day and returned only in the evening.
23. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 was consistent on the fact that the accused was the assailant. Any variation concerning the precise sequence of events or exact point of impact was minor and understandable in view of the speed and traumatic nature of the attack. It did not go to the root of the reliability of their recognition evidence.
24. PW3 and PW4 did not witness the actual assault. Their evidence nevertheless provides important independent context. They met the accused coming from the direction of the homestead while carrying a panga which appeared blood-stained a very short time after hearing the screams. I have, however, placed no reliance on the words which PW3 and PW4 attributed to the accused concerning the killing of three persons, as such words would amount to a confession or an admission tending to the proof of guilt and were not received in accordance with section 25A of the Evidence Act. PW3 and PW4's independent observations remain relevant even without those words.
25. On Count I, relating to Edna Moraa Nyairo, no witness saw the accused inflict the fatal wound upon her. Count 1 thus rests on circumstantial evidence. The applicable test on circumstantial evidence was settled in the case of Abanga alias Onyango v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1990 (UR). The Court of Appeal held that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be cogently and firmly established, must point unerringly towards the accused, and must cumulatively form a complete chain leaving no reasonable conclusion other than that the accused committed the offence. The Court must also exclude any co-existing circumstances capable of weakening or destroying that inference: Simon Musoke v Republic [1958] EA 715.
26. I have carefully weighed the prosecution case, the defence of alibi raised by the accused and the circumstances of this case. An accused who raises an alibi assumes no burden of proving it. It is sufficient if the alibi raises a reasonable doubt. In the case of Kiarie v Republic [1984] (1984)KLR 739, it was held: “An alibi raises a specific defence and an accused person who puts forward an alibi as an answer to a charge does not in law thereby assume any burden of proving that answer, and it is sufficient if an alibi introduces into the mind of a court a doubt that is not unreasonable. In this case, the following circumstances were proved :
a) Edna was found mortally wounded at her homestead at the same time that the accused was seen attacking her two children with a panga ;
b) PW2 testified that no other person was present in the homestead at the material time;
c) all three victims sustained sharp-force injuries in one brief and continuous transaction;
d) the accused chased PW1 and PW2 away after they witnessed the attack upon the children;
e) immediately thereafter, PW3 and PW4 met the accused coming from the direction of the homestead while carrying a panga which appeared blood-stained; and
f) there was a recent violent dispute between the accused and PW5 arising from family land.
27. Taken cumulatively, those circumstances form a coherent and complete chain. They exclude a reasonable possibility that a third party attacked Edna and her children. There is clear evidence that the accused is the one who killed Quinter Kemunto Omuga and Dismas Mark Omuga, and circumstantial evidence pointing at him for the killing of Edna Moraa Nyairo. The alibi is displaced by the firm and credible recognition evidence of PW1 and PW2, which placed the accused at the homestead during the attack. It is also contradicted by PW3 and PW4, whom the accused himself named in his defence, and who testified that they encountered him at about noon coming from the direction of the scene while carrying the panga. Though the recovered panga was not subjected to forensic analysis, there is firm evidence from PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4 that they saw the accused with the panga, and PW1 and PW2 actually saw him attack Quinter and Dismas with the same. The omission is thus not fatal. The accused was thus properly placed at the scene of the murder of the three victims herein, and I hereby proceed to dismiss his alibi as false.
28. I therefore find beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the unlawful acts which caused the deaths of Edna Moraa Nyairo, Quinter Kemunto Omuga and Dismas Mark Omuga.
iii. Whether malice aforethought was proved
29. It is trite law that the offence of murder is not complete unless the act of killing (actus reus) is accompanied by mens rea (guilty mind ). Section 206 of the Penal Code provides, in material part, that malice aforethought is established by proof of an intention to cause death or grievous harm, or knowledge that the act causing death will probably cause death or grievous harm, notwithstanding indifference as to whether that consequence occurs.
30. In determining malice aforethought, the Court may consider the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the part of the body targeted, the nature and severity of the injuries, and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the attack: Tubere s/o Ochen v Republic [1945] 12 EACA 63.
31. The accused used a panga to violently strike the victims on the head, neck and upper spine, which are manifestly vulnerable parts of the body. The injuries included a complicated skull fracture and, in the case of Dismas, complete transection of the spinal cord. Two of the victims were very young children incapable of offering meaningful resistance. The choice of weapon, the parts of the body targeted and the devastating force of the injuries demonstrate an intention to kill or, at the very least, to cause grievous harm with knowledge that death would probably result.
32. The recent violent dispute between the accused and PW5 provides background to the attack. There also was no evidence of accident, lawful self-defence, provocation sufficient in law, or intoxication capable of negating intent. I am satisfied that malice aforethought was proved in respect of each count.
G. Disposition
33. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the prosecution has proved every element of the offence of murder against Alex Ayata Migosi beyond reasonable doubt in each of the three counts.
34. I accordingly proceed to convict the accused:
a) on Count I, for the murder of Edna Moraa Nyairo;
b) on Count II, for the murder of Quinter Kemunto Omuga; and
c) on Count III, for the murder of Dismas Mark Omuga,
each contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
17.9.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
In the presence of:
Accused
MR KOIMA for the Prosecution
MISS GOGI for the Accused
ONKUNDI- Court Assistant
Koima: We have no previous records for the accused.
Gogi: We seek a pre-sentence report before Mitigation.
Koima: I seek a date for victim impact statements.
Order: The accused shall remain in lawful custody pending sentence. The Probation and Aftercare Service shall file a pre-sentence report within twenty-one (21) days, after which the matter shall be mentioned for mitigation and sentence.
Mention on 10.10.26. Victims to be availed.