REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CRIMINAL CASE NO E012 OF 2023 (MURDER )
CORAM: OUGO J
PROSECUTOR…………………………………………………..REPUBLIC
VERSUS
FELIX KIPYEGON NAKAMETE…………………………..…ACCUSED
JUDGMENT
1. The accused, FELIX KIPYEGON NAKAMETE , was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code . The particulars are that on 13 th March 2023 at 1500 hours at Kaptoboi village, Sasur Location in Cheptais Sub-County within Bungoma County, jointly with another, not before the court, murdered EZEKIEL KIPROP NDIEMA alias ALLAN .
2. The prosecution called 9 witnesses to prove its case. Emmanuel Ndiwa Monoo (Pw1), Moses Chepketei Ndiwa (Pw2), Lily Chesebe Chepkwony (Pw3), Dan Chebonya (Pw4), Benson Karam Isaac (Pw5), Richard Yambi Ndiwa (Pw6), Salvine Cheruto (Pw7), Dr Elly Kiplimo Kosgei (Pw8) and No. 252733 PC Simon Powon (Pw9). The accused, Felix Kipyegon Nakamete , gave sworn testimony as Dw1.
3. Pw1 testified that on 11/3/2023 at 3:00 pm, he was with the deceased, his in-law. He recalled that they had gone to drink chang’aa and continued until 1:00 am. They left the chang’aa den together, and Pw1 saw two people with torches shining on them. When he asked who they were, he was struck with a fimbo on his forehead, left arm, and leg. He stated that when the two people attacked them, the torchlight enabled him to see the accused. He explained that when the torch was shone, he saw the accused hiding on his right side. He knew the accused, who was his neighbour. Pw1 ran away screaming, while the deceased ran towards the coffee plantation, and they followed him. He went to the police station at Chesikaki at 2:00 a.m. and reported. The following day, he returned to the police and reported that they had been attacked by the accused and Masai alias Boyi. On 13/3/2023, he went to Sirisia, obtained a P3 form, and received treatment. He was later informed of the deceased’s death.
4. Pw2 testified that his home is near the road. On the material day at 1:00 a.m., he heard voices on the road. He heard someone say, ‘Allan is killing me.’ This was repeated many times. He decided to check it out. Using the light from his torch, he saw the accused standing on the road, screaming. The accused told him that the deceased had beaten him. The deceased was lying near him and bleeding. He had blood all over his face, while the accused had no injuries. Pw2 asked the accused why he had beaten the deceased, even though he was claiming that the deceased had beaten him. After asking this, the accused left. Pw2 called the village elder and told him what had happened.
5. The village elder, Pw5 , testified that on 12/3/2023 at 1:30 a.m., he heard screams. He went to the scene and found the deceased had been beaten on the head and was bleeding, lying in a pool of blood. He called his relative, Pw4.
6. The deceased’s brother, Pw4 , received a call on the material day to go and save his brother. He went to the scene and found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from the head. The deceased then told him: “Ndungu yanga nikikufa ni kwa sababu ya watu wawili”. The deceased named the accused person and Sammy Masai Nilong, alias Sigoi.
7. The deceased’s mother, Pw3 , was at home when her co-wife asked why she had turned off my phone. She then informed him that the deceased had been beaten. Pw3 woke the deceased’s brother and his cousin, Pw6. Pw3 and Pw6 went to the scene. The deceased’s face was covered in blood. Pw3 used her headscarf to bind the deceased’s head. The deceased was taken to Cheptais District Hospital. At 9:00 a.m., they were advised to take him to Bungoma Referral Hospital because he was still not speaking. On 13/3/2023, they were told to transfer him to Eldoret, but she had no means to take him to Eldoret Lifecare Hospital. The deceased died.
8. The post-mortem was conducted by Pw8 , a senior medical officer at Bungoma Referral Hospital. On external examination, the deceased had a bruise on the forehead and the occipital region of the head. Internally, he had a fractured temporal bone, a scalp hematoma, and a large subdural hematoma. Pw8 concluded that the cause of death was a severe head injury resulting from a massive subdural hematoma caused by blunt trauma to the head.
9. The investigating officer, Pw9 , testified that it was reported that the deceased was attacked by the accused and died. At the scene, they found a stained stick or rungu, which they believed was the murder weapon. His colleague, PC Karissa, attended the post-mortem, during which samples from the deceased were taken. A memo forwarding the wooden stick, a shirt from the deceased, and a buccal swab from the accused was sent to the government chemist in Kisumu.
10. Pw7 testified that he has been a senior government analyst attached to the Kisumu government chemist laboratory for the past four years. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry. He received an exhibit memo containing the following exhibits.
1. A wooden stick marked “A”.
2. A white long-sleeved shirt in a brown envelope marked “B”.
3. Blood sample of the deceased in a Vacutainer tube marked “C”.
4. Buccal swab of the accused marked “D”.
11. Pw7 testified that the analysis and outcome showed that the DNA profiles obtained from the blood stains on the wooden stick (item A) and the shirt (item B) were identical and matched the DNA profile of the deceased. The DNA profile obtained from the accused, however, did not match the profiles generated from "A” and “B”.
12. The accused gave evidence in his defence that on 13/3/2023 at 3:00 p.m., he was at the centre buying fertilisers. Suddenly, he saw the police, who arrested him. They told him the deceased had been beaten, but he did not know the deceased. On 11/3/2023, he was at home. He denied committing the offence.
13. The prosecution, in its submissions, argues that it proved the deceased died as a result of an unlawful act. Pw1 testified that they were attacked by the accused. Pw2, Pw3, Pw4, Pw5, and Pw6 all confirmed that the deceased was lying on the ground in pain and bleeding. Although the accused person’s DNA was not found on either the shirt or the stick, this was not a requirement to prove murder. The deceased sustained two fractures to the head, which demonstrated malice aforethought on the part of the accused.
14. The accused, in his submissions, contends that there are contradictions regarding the weapon and the sequence of events, which cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case. The prosecution also failed to prove malice aforethought. Additionally, it questioned Pw1’s voice recognition of the accused.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
15. I have considered the evidence presented by both the prosecution witnesses and the defence of the accused. The main issue is whether the prosecution has proven its case against the accused to the required standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is charged under sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code, which read as follows:
“203. Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.
204. Any person who is convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.”
16. The prosecution must prove the deceased's death, that the accused caused unlawful death, and that the accused was motivated by malice.
17. The death of the deceased was sufficiently proved. Pw8, who carried out the post-mortem, concluded that the deceased died from a severe head injury caused by a massive subdural haematoma resulting from blunt trauma to the head.
18. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 established the accused's presence at the scene. Pw1 stated that he has known the accused well since childhood, while Pw2 confirmed that he has known the accused as a neighbour for over 20 years. Nonetheless, as the incident occurred at night, it is necessary to examine the lighting conditions, despite both Pw1 and Pw2 claiming that they knew the accused well.
19. In the case of Wamunga vs. Republic [1989] KLR 424 , this Court had this to say:
“Evidence of visual identification in criminal cases can bring about miscarriages of justice, and it is of vital importance that such evidence is examined carefully to minimise this danger. Whenever the case against a defendant depends wholly or to a greater extent on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which he alleges to be mistaken the court must warn itself of the special need for caution before convicting the defendant in reliance on the correctness of the identification … It is trite law that where the only evidence against a defendant is evidence of identification or recognition, a trial court is enjoined to examine such evidence carefully and to be satisfied that the circumstances of identification were favourable and free from possibility of error before it can safely make it the basis of a conclusion ...”
20. In the case of Maitanyi vs. R [1986] KLR 198 , the court was of the following view:
“That may sound too obvious to be said, but the strange fact is that many witnesses do not properly identify another person even in daylight. It is at least essential to ascertain the nature of the light available. What sort of light, its size, and its position relative to the suspect, are all important matters helping to test the evidence with the greatest care. It is not a careful test if none of these matters are known because they were not inquired into. In days gone by, there would have been a careful inquiry into these matters, by the committing magistrate, state counsel and defence counsel. In the absence of all these safeguards, it now becomes the significant burden of senior magistrates trying cases of capital robbery to make these enquiries themselves.”
21. Pw1 testified that he saw the accused person by the light of a torch and then ran away. Pw2, upon hearing a noise outside his house near the road, went to the scene. Using his torch, Pw2 saw the accused standing next to the deceased, who was lying on the ground. Pw2 spoke to the appellant, who then ran away. According to the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was positively identified and placed at the scene during the incident.
22. The identification of the accused as the person who caused the deceased’s injuries was further supported by the testimony of Pw4. Pw4 testified that the deceased then told him: “Ndungu yanga nikikufa ni kwa sababu ya watu wawili”. The deceased went on to name the accused and Sammy Masai Nilong, also known as Sigoi. Regarding whether the statement qualifies as a dying declaration, this court is guided by section 33(a) of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), which states:
“33.Statement by deceased person, etc., when Statements, written or oral or electronically recorded, of admissible facts made by a person who is dead, ... are themselves admissible in the following cases—
(a)Relating to cause of death when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are admissible whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question;…….”
23. The Court of Appeal in Philip Nzaka Watu – vs – Republic [2016] eKLR on admissibility of a dying declaration stated that:
“ ...a dying declaration is admissible in evidence as an exception to the rule against admissibility of hearsay evidence. Under that provision, statements of admissible facts, oral or written, made by a person who is dead are admissible where the cause of his death is in question, and those statements were made by him as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction leading to his death. Such statements are admissible whether the person who made them was or was not expecting death when he made the statements. ... While it is not the rule of law that a dying declaration must be corroborated to found a conviction, nevertheless, the trial court must proceed with caution and (sic) to get the necessary assurance that a conviction founded on a death declaration is indeed safe.”
24. The statement made by the deceased to Pw4 concerned who was responsible for the injuries that caused his death. Therefore, it was a dying declaration.
25. The government chemist's findings corroborated Pw2's testimony. Pw2 stated that the deceased had blood all over his face, whereas the accused had no injuries. This explained why the DNA profile from the accused's buccal swab did not match the DNA profile from the wooden stick and the deceased's shirt.
26. Having considered the evidence of Pw1, Pw2 and Pw4, I find that the accused was identified as the person responsible for the unlawful death of Ezekiel Kirop Ndiema alia Allan .
27. I now turn to assess whether the prosecution has established malice aforethought. Section 206 of the Penal Code defines malice aforethought, and in determining whether this essential element has been proved, the court must consider both the circumstances of the incident and the context in which it occurred. The landmark case of R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63 provides guidance on when malice can be inferred. The court stated as follows:
“The weapon used i.e. whether it was a lethal weapon or not;
The part of the body that was targeted i.e. whether it is a vulnerable part or not;
The manner in which the weapon was used i.e. whether repeatedly or not, or number of injuries inflicted; and
The conduct of the accused before, during and after the incident i.e. whether there was impunity.”
28. Pw1 testified that, when they were attacked, they were struck with a stick. According to Pw8, the deceased had a fractured temporal bone (bilateral fracture) and a massive subdural haematoma. The deceased had no other injuries on the body. The evidence clearly shows that the accused targeted and struck the deceased’s head until he was bleeding heavily and unable to speak.
29. In the circumstances, I find that malice aforethought was established, as the accused knew that his actions would cause grievous harm or death to the deceased. Consequently, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, FELIX KIPYEGON NAKAMETE, is guilty of the murder of EZEEKIEL KIPROP NDIEMA, alias ALLAN, and is convicted accordingly as charged.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at BUNGOMA this 11 th day of December 2025
R.E. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Felix Kipyegon Nakamat /Accused
Miss Nekesa -For the Accused
M/s Kibet For the State; Wilkister -C/A
HCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENTHCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENT HCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENTHCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENT 2222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CRIMINAL CASE NO E012 OF 2023 (MURDER )
CORAM: OUGO J
PROSECUTOR…………………………………………………..REPUBLIC
VERSUS
FELIX KIPYEGON NAKAMETE…………………………..…ACCUSED
JUDGMENT
1. The accused, FELIX KIPYEGON NAKAMETE , was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code . The particulars are that on 13 th March 2023 at 1500 hours at Kaptoboi village, Sasur Location in Cheptais Sub-County within Bungoma County, jointly with another, not before the court, murdered EZEKIEL KIPROP NDIEMA alias ALLAN .
2. The prosecution called 9 witnesses to prove its case. Emmanuel Ndiwa Monoo (Pw1), Moses Chepketei Ndiwa (Pw2), Lily Chesebe Chepkwony (Pw3), Dan Chebonya (Pw4), Benson Karam Isaac (Pw5), Richard Yambi Ndiwa (Pw6), Salvine Cheruto (Pw7), Dr Elly Kiplimo Kosgei (Pw8) and No. 252733 PC Simon Powon (Pw9). The accused, Felix Kipyegon Nakamete , gave sworn testimony as Dw1.
3. Pw1 testified that on 11/3/2023 at 3:00 pm, he was with the deceased, his in-law. He recalled that they had gone to drink chang’aa and continued until 1:00 am. They left the chang’aa den together, and Pw1 saw two people with torches shining on them. When he asked who they were, he was struck with a fimbo on his forehead, left arm, and leg. He stated that when the two people attacked them, the torchlight enabled him to see the accused. He explained that when the torch was shone, he saw the accused hiding on his right side. He knew the accused, who was his neighbour. Pw1 ran away screaming, while the deceased ran towards the coffee plantation, and they followed him. He went to the police station at Chesikaki at 2:00 a.m. and reported. The following day, he returned to the police and reported that they had been attacked by the accused and Masai alias Boyi. On 13/3/2023, he went to Sirisia, obtained a P3 form, and received treatment. He was later informed of the deceased’s death.
4. Pw2 testified that his home is near the road. On the material day at 1:00 a.m., he heard voices on the road. He heard someone say, ‘Allan is killing me.’ This was repeated many times. He decided to check it out. Using the light from his torch, he saw the accused standing on the road, screaming. The accused told him that the deceased had beaten him. The deceased was lying near him and bleeding. He had blood all over his face, while the accused had no injuries. Pw2 asked the accused why he had beaten the deceased, even though he was claiming that the deceased had beaten him. After asking this, the accused left. Pw2 called the village elder and told him what had happened.
5. The village elder, Pw5 , testified that on 12/3/2023 at 1:30 a.m., he heard screams. He went to the scene and found the deceased had been beaten on the head and was bleeding, lying in a pool of blood. He called his relative, Pw4.
6. The deceased’s brother, Pw4 , received a call on the material day to go and save his brother. He went to the scene and found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from the head. The deceased then told him: “Ndungu yanga nikikufa ni kwa sababu ya watu wawili”. The deceased named the accused person and Sammy Masai Nilong, alias Sigoi.
7. The deceased’s mother, Pw3 , was at home when her co-wife asked why she had turned off my phone. She then informed him that the deceased had been beaten. Pw3 woke the deceased’s brother and his cousin, Pw6. Pw3 and Pw6 went to the scene. The deceased’s face was covered in blood. Pw3 used her headscarf to bind the deceased’s head. The deceased was taken to Cheptais District Hospital. At 9:00 a.m., they were advised to take him to Bungoma Referral Hospital because he was still not speaking. On 13/3/2023, they were told to transfer him to Eldoret, but she had no means to take him to Eldoret Lifecare Hospital. The deceased died.
8. The post-mortem was conducted by Pw8 , a senior medical officer at Bungoma Referral Hospital. On external examination, the deceased had a bruise on the forehead and the occipital region of the head. Internally, he had a fractured temporal bone, a scalp hematoma, and a large subdural hematoma. Pw8 concluded that the cause of death was a severe head injury resulting from a massive subdural hematoma caused by blunt trauma to the head.
9. The investigating officer, Pw9 , testified that it was reported that the deceased was attacked by the accused and died. At the scene, they found a stained stick or rungu, which they believed was the murder weapon. His colleague, PC Karissa, attended the post-mortem, during which samples from the deceased were taken. A memo forwarding the wooden stick, a shirt from the deceased, and a buccal swab from the accused was sent to the government chemist in Kisumu.
10. Pw7 testified that he has been a senior government analyst attached to the Kisumu government chemist laboratory for the past four years. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry. He received an exhibit memo containing the following exhibits.
1. A wooden stick marked “A”.
2. A white long-sleeved shirt in a brown envelope marked “B”.
3. Blood sample of the deceased in a Vacutainer tube marked “C”.
4. Buccal swab of the accused marked “D”.
11. Pw7 testified that the analysis and outcome showed that the DNA profiles obtained from the blood stains on the wooden stick (item A) and the shirt (item B) were identical and matched the DNA profile of the deceased. The DNA profile obtained from the accused, however, did not match the profiles generated from "A” and “B”.
12. The accused gave evidence in his defence that on 13/3/2023 at 3:00 p.m., he was at the centre buying fertilisers. Suddenly, he saw the police, who arrested him. They told him the deceased had been beaten, but he did not know the deceased. On 11/3/2023, he was at home. He denied committing the offence.
13. The prosecution, in its submissions, argues that it proved the deceased died as a result of an unlawful act. Pw1 testified that they were attacked by the accused. Pw2, Pw3, Pw4, Pw5, and Pw6 all confirmed that the deceased was lying on the ground in pain and bleeding. Although the accused person’s DNA was not found on either the shirt or the stick, this was not a requirement to prove murder. The deceased sustained two fractures to the head, which demonstrated malice aforethought on the part of the accused.
14. The accused, in his submissions, contends that there are contradictions regarding the weapon and the sequence of events, which cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case. The prosecution also failed to prove malice aforethought. Additionally, it questioned Pw1’s voice recognition of the accused.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
15. I have considered the evidence presented by both the prosecution witnesses and the defence of the accused. The main issue is whether the prosecution has proven its case against the accused to the required standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is charged under sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code, which read as follows:
“203. Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.
204. Any person who is convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.”
16. The prosecution must prove the deceased's death, that the accused caused unlawful death, and that the accused was motivated by malice.
17. The death of the deceased was sufficiently proved. Pw8, who carried out the post-mortem, concluded that the deceased died from a severe head injury caused by a massive subdural haematoma resulting from blunt trauma to the head.
18. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 established the accused's presence at the scene. Pw1 stated that he has known the accused well since childhood, while Pw2 confirmed that he has known the accused as a neighbour for over 20 years. Nonetheless, as the incident occurred at night, it is necessary to examine the lighting conditions, despite both Pw1 and Pw2 claiming that they knew the accused well.
19. In the case of Wamunga vs. Republic [1989] KLR 424 , this Court had this to say:
“Evidence of visual identification in criminal cases can bring about miscarriages of justice, and it is of vital importance that such evidence is examined carefully to minimise this danger. Whenever the case against a defendant depends wholly or to a greater extent on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which he alleges to be mistaken the court must warn itself of the special need for caution before convicting the defendant in reliance on the correctness of the identification … It is trite law that where the only evidence against a defendant is evidence of identification or recognition, a trial court is enjoined to examine such evidence carefully and to be satisfied that the circumstances of identification were favourable and free from possibility of error before it can safely make it the basis of a conclusion ...”
20. In the case of Maitanyi vs. R [1986] KLR 198 , the court was of the following view:
“That may sound too obvious to be said, but the strange fact is that many witnesses do not properly identify another person even in daylight. It is at least essential to ascertain the nature of the light available. What sort of light, its size, and its position relative to the suspect, are all important matters helping to test the evidence with the greatest care. It is not a careful test if none of these matters are known because they were not inquired into. In days gone by, there would have been a careful inquiry into these matters, by the committing magistrate, state counsel and defence counsel. In the absence of all these safeguards, it now becomes the significant burden of senior magistrates trying cases of capital robbery to make these enquiries themselves.”
21. Pw1 testified that he saw the accused person by the light of a torch and then ran away. Pw2, upon hearing a noise outside his house near the road, went to the scene. Using his torch, Pw2 saw the accused standing next to the deceased, who was lying on the ground. Pw2 spoke to the appellant, who then ran away. According to the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was positively identified and placed at the scene during the incident.
22. The identification of the accused as the person who caused the deceased’s injuries was further supported by the testimony of Pw4. Pw4 testified that the deceased then told him: “Ndungu yanga nikikufa ni kwa sababu ya watu wawili”. The deceased went on to name the accused and Sammy Masai Nilong, also known as Sigoi. Regarding whether the statement qualifies as a dying declaration, this court is guided by section 33(a) of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), which states:
“33.Statement by deceased person, etc., when Statements, written or oral or electronically recorded, of admissible facts made by a person who is dead, ... are themselves admissible in the following cases—
(a)Relating to cause of death when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are admissible whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question;…….”
23. The Court of Appeal in Philip Nzaka Watu – vs – Republic [2016] eKLR on admissibility of a dying declaration stated that:
“ ...a dying declaration is admissible in evidence as an exception to the rule against admissibility of hearsay evidence. Under that provision, statements of admissible facts, oral or written, made by a person who is dead are admissible where the cause of his death is in question, and those statements were made by him as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction leading to his death. Such statements are admissible whether the person who made them was or was not expecting death when he made the statements. ... While it is not the rule of law that a dying declaration must be corroborated to found a conviction, nevertheless, the trial court must proceed with caution and (sic) to get the necessary assurance that a conviction founded on a death declaration is indeed safe.”
24. The statement made by the deceased to Pw4 concerned who was responsible for the injuries that caused his death. Therefore, it was a dying declaration.
25. The government chemist's findings corroborated Pw2's testimony. Pw2 stated that the deceased had blood all over his face, whereas the accused had no injuries. This explained why the DNA profile from the accused's buccal swab did not match the DNA profile from the wooden stick and the deceased's shirt.
26. Having considered the evidence of Pw1, Pw2 and Pw4, I find that the accused was identified as the person responsible for the unlawful death of Ezekiel Kirop Ndiema alia Allan .
27. I now turn to assess whether the prosecution has established malice aforethought. Section 206 of the Penal Code defines malice aforethought, and in determining whether this essential element has been proved, the court must consider both the circumstances of the incident and the context in which it occurred. The landmark case of R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63 provides guidance on when malice can be inferred. The court stated as follows:
“The weapon used i.e. whether it was a lethal weapon or not;
The part of the body that was targeted i.e. whether it is a vulnerable part or not;
The manner in which the weapon was used i.e. whether repeatedly or not, or number of injuries inflicted; and
The conduct of the accused before, during and after the incident i.e. whether there was impunity.”
28. Pw1 testified that, when they were attacked, they were struck with a stick. According to Pw8, the deceased had a fractured temporal bone (bilateral fracture) and a massive subdural haematoma. The deceased had no other injuries on the body. The evidence clearly shows that the accused targeted and struck the deceased’s head until he was bleeding heavily and unable to speak.
29. In the circumstances, I find that malice aforethought was established, as the accused knew that his actions would cause grievous harm or death to the deceased. Consequently, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, FELIX KIPYEGON NAKAMETE, is guilty of the murder of EZEEKIEL KIPROP NDIEMA, alias ALLAN, and is convicted accordingly as charged.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at BUNGOMA this 11 th day of December 2025
R.E. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Felix Kipyegon Nakamat /Accused
Miss Nekesa -For the Accused
M/s Kibet For the State; Wilkister -C/A
HCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENTHCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENT HCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENTHCCRC NO E012 OF 2023 - JUDGMENT 2222