Introduction
1. The accused person, Enock Abere Nyamango, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on the night of 22nd April 2022 at Otanji Market, Nyamache Sub-County, he unlawfully caused the death of Anderson Arasa Nyamongo.
2.Accused pleaded not guilty to the offence and he was duly represented by Counsel herein. The prosecution called five (5) witnesses. Upon being placed on his defence , accused opted to adduce unsworn evidence and called no witness.
Prosecution Case
3. PW1 – Mose Ongagi Japheth testified that on 22.4.2022 at about 7.30 pm, while returning home from Otachii market with the deceased, they met the accused. PW1 walked a few steps ahead when he heard the accused confronting the deceased over political rumours. The accused slapped and kicked the deceased, causing him to fall. PW1 attempted to intervene but the accused produced a metal nut/bolt and a knife, threatened PW1, pushed him down, and proceeded to hit the deceased twice on the head with the metal object while he lay on the ground. PW1 ran away in fear.PW1 further testified that later at 10.30 pm, the accused went to his home, admitted having killed the deceased, and attempted to dissuade PW1 from becoming a witness. The following morning,he found the deceased’s body at the same spot where he had been assaulted. On cross-examination, PW1 remained firm that he saw the accused assault the deceased and identified him clearly under bright electricity lights from nearby shops.
4. PW2 – Gabriel Ochere Masase, an uncle to the deceased, testified that on the morning of 23.4.2022, he found the deceased dead at Otanji market. PW1 later informed him that the accused had assaulted the deceased the previous night. PW2 confirmed that the accused and deceased were cousins.
5. PW3 – Robina Kemunto Nyamache testified that she discovered the deceased’s body at about 6.00 am while returning from buying milk. She confirmed the deceased was already dead and raised alarm. She did not observe visible injuries.
6. PW4 – Dr. David Matagaro Okinyi, is the one who conducted the post-mortem examination, found a temporal bone fracture, subdural and intracranial haematoma, and swelling on the right side of the head. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was intracranial bleeding following blunt force trauma to the head.
7. PW5 – Corporal Japheth Musymi, the investigating officer, testified that investigations based on the evidence of PW1 established that the deceased had been assaulted by the accused on the night of 22.4.2022. The accused was arrested on 25.4.2022. The murder weapon was not recovered.
Defence Case
8. The accused adduce unsworn evidence. He denied assaulting the deceased and stated that he last saw the deceased earlier while drinking chang’aa. He claimed he slept at home and only learnt that the body of deceased was the following morning. He denied having any bad blood with the deceased and suggested his arrest was politically motivated .
Issues for Determination
9. I have carefully considered prosecution’s case defence and the submissions The following issues arise for determination:
1. Whether the death of the deceased was proved
2. Whether the death was caused by an unlawful act
3. Whether the accused was placed at the scene
4. Whether malice aforethought was established
Analysis and Determination
10. This is a criminal case and the standard of proof is that of beyond any reasonable doubt . The burden of proof is on prosecution as it is trite law under Section 107 of the Law of Evidence Act that he who alleges must prove . In the case of Viscount Sankey L.C in the case of H.L. (E)* WOOLMINGTON V DPP [1935] A.C 462 pp 481 in a subtle and masterly fashion stated the law on legal burden of proof in criminal matters, that;
‘’Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception…No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’’
According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 17, paras 13 and 14:
. The legal burden is the burden of proof which remains constant throughout a trial; it is the burden of establishing the facts and contentions which will support a party’s case. If at the conclusion of the trial he has failed to establish these to the appropriate standard, he will lose.
The legal burden of proof normally rests upon the party desiring the court to take action; thus a claimant must satisfy the court or tribunal that the conditions which entitle him to an award have been satisfied. In respect of a particular allegation, the burden lies upon the party for whom substantiation of that particular allegation is an essential of his case. There may therefore be separate burdens in a case of with separate issues.
(a) Proof of Death
The death of Anderson Arasa Nyamongo was proved beyond doubt through the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, and the post-mortem report produced by PW4.
(b) Cause of Death
11. PW4 conclusively established that the deceased died from intracranial bleeding caused by blunt force trauma to the head. There was no evidence suggesting accident or lawful justification. The death was therefore unlawful.
(c) Whether the Accused was placed at the scene
12. The issue of identification , this is crucial in criminal matters prosecution’s case is that PW1 was with the deceased on 22.4.22 at about 7.30 Pm he was walking about 5 steps ahead of deceased towards his home PW1 was an eyewitness who knew the accused well prior to the incident ad he was in classmates in school . He heard accused order deceased to stop he asked deceased why he was spreading rumors that he would not vote for his brother Michael. Accused slapped deceased and kicked him and he fell down . Pw1 went to rescue deceased and accused removed a nut which was about 2feet long and a knife used to cut tea leaves but accused moved towards him and threatened to stab him. He and he pushed Pw1 and he fell down . Accused then hit deceased twice with the nut on the head while deceased was on the grounds . PW1 got a chance to escape and he ran away. Accused knocked his door at 10:30 pm on the material night but he did not open for him . He said he knew accused as his former school mate and he lives about 2 km away from him . On cross examination he said that the incident occurred under bright lighting from shops at Otanchi market . He said accused was wearing a blue and black stripped jacket , gumboots and a black pair of trousers while deceased was wearing a black cap and a pair of blue jeans trousers . PW1 gave detailed account of the the chain of events leading to the assault. Accused denied the charge saying deceased found him drinking in a local changaa den on the material day and deceased ordered a glass of changaa. He left deceased drinking and went home. On the next day he was surprised to hear that deceased was found dead along the road.
13. Pw1 was the only witnesss who testified that he recognized accused at the scene It is trite law that evidence of a single recognizing and /or identifying witness must be carefully analyzed to ensure that there was no possibility of a mistake as was held in the case of MAITANYI v REPUBLIC [1986] KLR 198, this Court stated as follows:
“1. Although it is trite law that a fact may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, this does not lessen the need for testing with the greatest care the evidence of a single witness respecting identification, especially when it is known that the conditions favouring a correct identification were difficult.
2. When testing the evidence of a single witness a careful inquiry ought to be made into the nature of the light available conditions and whether the witness was able to make a true impression and description.
3. The court must warn itself of the danger of relying on the evidence of a single identifying witness. It is not enough for the court to warn itself after making the decision, it must do so when the evidence is being considered and before decision is made.
4. Failure to undertake an inquiry of careful testing is an error of law and such evidence cannot safely support a conviction.”
14. The incident allegedly occurred at night. In the case of in Republic v Turnbull (1971) QR 227 provides useful guidelines in so far as identification is concerned. That court stated:
“... The Judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made. How long did the witness have with the Accused under observation? At what distance? In what light? Was the observation impeded in any way....? Had the witness ever seen the accused before? How often? If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused? how long elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police? Was there any material discrepancy between the description of the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen by them and his actual appearance?.... Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger but even when the witness is purporting to recognize someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made.”
15. Accused testified that he was not at the scene at the material time but at his home prosecution still bears the burden of proof even where a defence of alibi has been raised as was held in the case of Victor Mwendwa Mulinge vs. R [2014] eKLR the court of appeal held ‘’
It is trite law that the burden of proving the falsity, if at all, of an accused’s defence of alibi lies on the prosecution; see Karanja vs. R [1983] KLR 501 … this Court held that in a proper case, a trial court may, in testing a defence of alibi and in weighing it with all the other evidence to see if the accused’s guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, take into account the fact that he had not put forward his defence of alibi at an early stage in the case so that it can be tested by those responsible for investigation and thereby prevent any suggestion that the defence was an afterthought. ‘’
In this case Pw1 was on cross-examinations said that the scene was well lit by bright lights from the shops on both sides of the road . In re-examination he said that the scene was lit by bright lights and it looked like day time . He even described the clothes the by deceased and accused were wearing at the scene . There is no evidence that Pw1 had a strained relationship with the accused which would have motivated him to implicate accused . Pw1 impressed me as a firm and consistent witness . The defence of alibi was not raised at the earliest to enable prosecution investigate but during defence . It was raised last minute during defence . I find that the scene was well lit at the material time and the circumstances at the scene were favourable to a positive identification and Pw1 knew accused before the incident as a cousin to deceased and thus there was no chance for mistaken identity. The defence of accused does not displace the prosecution evidence which is overwhelming . I proceed to dismiss the defence of alibi as an afterthought.
15. On whether the accused is the one who inflicted the fatal injuries , prosecution sought to prove that since accused deceased on the night before his body was recovered he must be the one who cause his death . The law of circumstantial evidence is well established in Kenya that prosecution must prove that the circumstances of the case are incompatible with the innocence of accused and point to no one else as was held in the case of Republic v Kipkering Arap Koske & Another (1949) 16 EACA 135. Also in the case of of MUCHENE –vs- REPUBLIC [2002] 1 KLR 367, Chunga CJ, Tunoi & Owuor JJA, held –
“1. It is trite law that where a conviction is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence such conviction can only be properly upheld if the court is satisfied that the inculpatory facts are not only inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant but also that there exists no co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy such inference.
2. It is settled law that the burden of proving facts which justify the drawing of such inference from the facts to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence is on prosecution and always remains as such."
16. The deceased was found dead hours after accused was seen assaulting him on the head after PW1 saw accused assaulting him with a bolt/nut on the head . The doctor found that cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. Prosecution adduced firm testimony which linked accused and no other to the offence .I have no doubt in my mind that accused was properly placed at the scene of the assault .
(d) Malice Aforethought
17. On whether malice after thought was proved , Malice afterthought is a crucial ingredient in the offence of murder . It is trite law as per the latin maxim that actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea . Meaning that the act its self does not constitute an offence unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind. Malice afterthought is defined in Section 206 of the Penal Code is in the following terms:
“‘Malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by
evidence proving any one or more of the following
circumstances
(a) an intention to cause the death of or to do
grievous harm to any person, whether that person is
the person actually killed or not;
(b) knowledge that the act or omission causing death
will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to
some person, whether that person is the person
actually killed or not, although such knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused;
(c)an intent to commit a felony;
(d)an intention by the act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or attempted to commit a felony.
18. In the instant case , it has emerged that accused confronted deceased over political rumours that deceased has accused him of not supporting candidature of an Aspirant for the local member of the county Assembly . Further that he had threatened the life of deceased before the incident due to political differences as per the evidence of PW1 and PW5 and this was reported . A bolt/nut was used to assault deceased on the head causing him fracture of the right ten goral region, subdual hematoma . The doctor found that the cause of death was intracranial bleeding following blunt object injury to the head . Accused targeted the head of deceased which is a delicate part of the body and so he knew that he would have suffered grievous injuries or death as a result of the attack. He also continued to attack deceased while he was lying helpless on the ground . The accused’s said actions demonstrate an intention to cause grievous harm or death. I find that Malice aforethought is therefore proved.
________________________________________
Conclusion
19. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court finds the accused Enock Abere Nyamango guilty of the offence of murder contrary to section contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code . I proceed to convict accused under Section 322 (2) CPC.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
27.1.26.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026, IN THE PRESENCE OF MISS ONYIEGO FOR ACCUSED , KOIMA FOR THE STATE AND CA KIPCHIRCHIR
Koima : I have no previous records of accused . I seek time to avail the victims for victim impact statement .
Onyiego : I seek time to mitigate upon presentence report being availed .
Order : Mention on 26.2.26 for pre-sentence report and victim impact statements.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
27.1.26
1. The accused person, Enock Abere Nyamango, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on the night of 22nd April 2022 at Otanji Market, Nyamache Sub-County, he unlawfully caused the death of Anderson Arasa Nyamongo.
2.Accused pleaded not guilty to the offence and he was duly represented by Counsel herein. The prosecution called five (5) witnesses. Upon being placed on his defence , accused opted to adduce unsworn evidence and called no witness.
Prosecution Case
3. PW1 – Mose Ongagi Japheth testified that on 22.4.2022 at about 7.30 pm, while returning home from Otachii market with the deceased, they met the accused. PW1 walked a few steps ahead when he heard the accused confronting the deceased over political rumours. The accused slapped and kicked the deceased, causing him to fall. PW1 attempted to intervene but the accused produced a metal nut/bolt and a knife, threatened PW1, pushed him down, and proceeded to hit the deceased twice on the head with the metal object while he lay on the ground. PW1 ran away in fear.PW1 further testified that later at 10.30 pm, the accused went to his home, admitted having killed the deceased, and attempted to dissuade PW1 from becoming a witness. The following morning,he found the deceased’s body at the same spot where he had been assaulted. On cross-examination, PW1 remained firm that he saw the accused assault the deceased and identified him clearly under bright electricity lights from nearby shops.
4. PW2 – Gabriel Ochere Masase, an uncle to the deceased, testified that on the morning of 23.4.2022, he found the deceased dead at Otanji market. PW1 later informed him that the accused had assaulted the deceased the previous night. PW2 confirmed that the accused and deceased were cousins.
5. PW3 – Robina Kemunto Nyamache testified that she discovered the deceased’s body at about 6.00 am while returning from buying milk. She confirmed the deceased was already dead and raised alarm. She did not observe visible injuries.
6. PW4 – Dr. David Matagaro Okinyi, is the one who conducted the post-mortem examination, found a temporal bone fracture, subdural and intracranial haematoma, and swelling on the right side of the head. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was intracranial bleeding following blunt force trauma to the head.
7. PW5 – Corporal Japheth Musymi, the investigating officer, testified that investigations based on the evidence of PW1 established that the deceased had been assaulted by the accused on the night of 22.4.2022. The accused was arrested on 25.4.2022. The murder weapon was not recovered.
Defence Case
8. The accused adduce unsworn evidence. He denied assaulting the deceased and stated that he last saw the deceased earlier while drinking chang’aa. He claimed he slept at home and only learnt that the body of deceased was the following morning. He denied having any bad blood with the deceased and suggested his arrest was politically motivated .
Issues for Determination
9. I have carefully considered prosecution’s case defence and the submissions The following issues arise for determination:
1. Whether the death of the deceased was proved
2. Whether the death was caused by an unlawful act
3. Whether the accused was placed at the scene
4. Whether malice aforethought was established
Analysis and Determination
10. This is a criminal case and the standard of proof is that of beyond any reasonable doubt . The burden of proof is on prosecution as it is trite law under Section 107 of the Law of Evidence Act that he who alleges must prove . In the case of Viscount Sankey L.C in the case of H.L. (E)* WOOLMINGTON V DPP [1935] A.C 462 pp 481 in a subtle and masterly fashion stated the law on legal burden of proof in criminal matters, that;
‘’Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception…No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’’
According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 17, paras 13 and 14:
. The legal burden is the burden of proof which remains constant throughout a trial; it is the burden of establishing the facts and contentions which will support a party’s case. If at the conclusion of the trial he has failed to establish these to the appropriate standard, he will lose.
The legal burden of proof normally rests upon the party desiring the court to take action; thus a claimant must satisfy the court or tribunal that the conditions which entitle him to an award have been satisfied. In respect of a particular allegation, the burden lies upon the party for whom substantiation of that particular allegation is an essential of his case. There may therefore be separate burdens in a case of with separate issues.
(a) Proof of Death
The death of Anderson Arasa Nyamongo was proved beyond doubt through the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, and the post-mortem report produced by PW4.
(b) Cause of Death
11. PW4 conclusively established that the deceased died from intracranial bleeding caused by blunt force trauma to the head. There was no evidence suggesting accident or lawful justification. The death was therefore unlawful.
(c) Whether the Accused was placed at the scene
12. The issue of identification , this is crucial in criminal matters prosecution’s case is that PW1 was with the deceased on 22.4.22 at about 7.30 Pm he was walking about 5 steps ahead of deceased towards his home PW1 was an eyewitness who knew the accused well prior to the incident ad he was in classmates in school . He heard accused order deceased to stop he asked deceased why he was spreading rumors that he would not vote for his brother Michael. Accused slapped deceased and kicked him and he fell down . Pw1 went to rescue deceased and accused removed a nut which was about 2feet long and a knife used to cut tea leaves but accused moved towards him and threatened to stab him. He and he pushed Pw1 and he fell down . Accused then hit deceased twice with the nut on the head while deceased was on the grounds . PW1 got a chance to escape and he ran away. Accused knocked his door at 10:30 pm on the material night but he did not open for him . He said he knew accused as his former school mate and he lives about 2 km away from him . On cross examination he said that the incident occurred under bright lighting from shops at Otanchi market . He said accused was wearing a blue and black stripped jacket , gumboots and a black pair of trousers while deceased was wearing a black cap and a pair of blue jeans trousers . PW1 gave detailed account of the the chain of events leading to the assault. Accused denied the charge saying deceased found him drinking in a local changaa den on the material day and deceased ordered a glass of changaa. He left deceased drinking and went home. On the next day he was surprised to hear that deceased was found dead along the road.
13. Pw1 was the only witnesss who testified that he recognized accused at the scene It is trite law that evidence of a single recognizing and /or identifying witness must be carefully analyzed to ensure that there was no possibility of a mistake as was held in the case of MAITANYI v REPUBLIC [1986] KLR 198, this Court stated as follows:
“1. Although it is trite law that a fact may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, this does not lessen the need for testing with the greatest care the evidence of a single witness respecting identification, especially when it is known that the conditions favouring a correct identification were difficult.
2. When testing the evidence of a single witness a careful inquiry ought to be made into the nature of the light available conditions and whether the witness was able to make a true impression and description.
3. The court must warn itself of the danger of relying on the evidence of a single identifying witness. It is not enough for the court to warn itself after making the decision, it must do so when the evidence is being considered and before decision is made.
4. Failure to undertake an inquiry of careful testing is an error of law and such evidence cannot safely support a conviction.”
14. The incident allegedly occurred at night. In the case of in Republic v Turnbull (1971) QR 227 provides useful guidelines in so far as identification is concerned. That court stated:
“... The Judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made. How long did the witness have with the Accused under observation? At what distance? In what light? Was the observation impeded in any way....? Had the witness ever seen the accused before? How often? If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused? how long elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police? Was there any material discrepancy between the description of the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen by them and his actual appearance?.... Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger but even when the witness is purporting to recognize someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made.”
15. Accused testified that he was not at the scene at the material time but at his home prosecution still bears the burden of proof even where a defence of alibi has been raised as was held in the case of Victor Mwendwa Mulinge vs. R [2014] eKLR the court of appeal held ‘’
It is trite law that the burden of proving the falsity, if at all, of an accused’s defence of alibi lies on the prosecution; see Karanja vs. R [1983] KLR 501 … this Court held that in a proper case, a trial court may, in testing a defence of alibi and in weighing it with all the other evidence to see if the accused’s guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, take into account the fact that he had not put forward his defence of alibi at an early stage in the case so that it can be tested by those responsible for investigation and thereby prevent any suggestion that the defence was an afterthought. ‘’
In this case Pw1 was on cross-examinations said that the scene was well lit by bright lights from the shops on both sides of the road . In re-examination he said that the scene was lit by bright lights and it looked like day time . He even described the clothes the by deceased and accused were wearing at the scene . There is no evidence that Pw1 had a strained relationship with the accused which would have motivated him to implicate accused . Pw1 impressed me as a firm and consistent witness . The defence of alibi was not raised at the earliest to enable prosecution investigate but during defence . It was raised last minute during defence . I find that the scene was well lit at the material time and the circumstances at the scene were favourable to a positive identification and Pw1 knew accused before the incident as a cousin to deceased and thus there was no chance for mistaken identity. The defence of accused does not displace the prosecution evidence which is overwhelming . I proceed to dismiss the defence of alibi as an afterthought.
15. On whether the accused is the one who inflicted the fatal injuries , prosecution sought to prove that since accused deceased on the night before his body was recovered he must be the one who cause his death . The law of circumstantial evidence is well established in Kenya that prosecution must prove that the circumstances of the case are incompatible with the innocence of accused and point to no one else as was held in the case of Republic v Kipkering Arap Koske & Another (1949) 16 EACA 135. Also in the case of of MUCHENE –vs- REPUBLIC [2002] 1 KLR 367, Chunga CJ, Tunoi & Owuor JJA, held –
“1. It is trite law that where a conviction is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence such conviction can only be properly upheld if the court is satisfied that the inculpatory facts are not only inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant but also that there exists no co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy such inference.
2. It is settled law that the burden of proving facts which justify the drawing of such inference from the facts to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence is on prosecution and always remains as such."
16. The deceased was found dead hours after accused was seen assaulting him on the head after PW1 saw accused assaulting him with a bolt/nut on the head . The doctor found that cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. Prosecution adduced firm testimony which linked accused and no other to the offence .I have no doubt in my mind that accused was properly placed at the scene of the assault .
(d) Malice Aforethought
17. On whether malice after thought was proved , Malice afterthought is a crucial ingredient in the offence of murder . It is trite law as per the latin maxim that actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea . Meaning that the act its self does not constitute an offence unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind. Malice afterthought is defined in Section 206 of the Penal Code is in the following terms:
“‘Malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by
evidence proving any one or more of the following
circumstances
(a) an intention to cause the death of or to do
grievous harm to any person, whether that person is
the person actually killed or not;
(b) knowledge that the act or omission causing death
will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to
some person, whether that person is the person
actually killed or not, although such knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused;
(c)an intent to commit a felony;
(d)an intention by the act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or attempted to commit a felony.
18. In the instant case , it has emerged that accused confronted deceased over political rumours that deceased has accused him of not supporting candidature of an Aspirant for the local member of the county Assembly . Further that he had threatened the life of deceased before the incident due to political differences as per the evidence of PW1 and PW5 and this was reported . A bolt/nut was used to assault deceased on the head causing him fracture of the right ten goral region, subdual hematoma . The doctor found that the cause of death was intracranial bleeding following blunt object injury to the head . Accused targeted the head of deceased which is a delicate part of the body and so he knew that he would have suffered grievous injuries or death as a result of the attack. He also continued to attack deceased while he was lying helpless on the ground . The accused’s said actions demonstrate an intention to cause grievous harm or death. I find that Malice aforethought is therefore proved.
________________________________________
Conclusion
19. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court finds the accused Enock Abere Nyamango guilty of the offence of murder contrary to section contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code . I proceed to convict accused under Section 322 (2) CPC.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
27.1.26.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026, IN THE PRESENCE OF MISS ONYIEGO FOR ACCUSED , KOIMA FOR THE STATE AND CA KIPCHIRCHIR
Koima : I have no previous records of accused . I seek time to avail the victims for victim impact statement .
Onyiego : I seek time to mitigate upon presentence report being availed .
Order : Mention on 26.2.26 for pre-sentence report and victim impact statements.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
27.1.26