JUDGMENT
1. Pursuant to the information dated 22
nd May 202, filed herein by the Director of
Public Prosecution the Accused, Isaac Mutai is charged with murder of Patrick
Kipleting Kimei [deceased] on 3
rd May 2020 at Chepkunyuk Village, Nandi
County.
2. The case for the prosecution was that the Accused and the deceased and others
including James Kiprotich [PW1], Stephen Choge [PW2], and Joshua
Kipkoech Samoei [PW4] were all village mates and neighbours. On the
material date during the day time they converged at a neighbouring homestead
which was known as an illicit liquor [changaa] den to partake the stuff. In the
process, they became argumentative and abusive to each other, more so, the
accused and the deceased.
3. Most of the revelers became intoxicated and left for their respective homes
leaving the deceased behind. In the evening hours, the area chief Silvanus
Koros [PW3] received a phone call from one Abraham regarding a person found
lying down on a road and bleeding. The chief proceeded to the scene and
confirmed that the person had already passed away and was the deceased
herein.
4. Police officers arrived at the scene and removed the body of the deceased to the
mortuary at Kapsabet Referral Hospital where a post mortem was carried out by
Dr. Evans Kibiwott [PW5] on the 5
th May 2020, after which he compiled and
signed the necessary post mortem report [P. Exhibit 1] showing that the
deceased died from severe brain trauma caused by repeated blow with a heavy
object.
5. The police investigations carried out by Sgt. Benjamin Nyongesa [PW6],
indicated that at the changaa drinking den the deceased picked a quarrel with the
Accused over allegations of defamation. He [deceased] then walked away
without any confrontation. He was however followed from behind by the
Accused who then attacked and assaulted him. The Accused was therefore
arrested and charged with the present offence.
6. In his defence, the Accused denied the offence and indicated that he was at the
changaa den on the material date with other revelers. He remained at the place
upto 5:00pm when he left and proceeded to his home in a state of drankardness.
He lay on a sofa set and was overcome by sleep. He was awakened by screams
and shouts in the neighbourhood. He left his house and proceeded to where the
screams emanated but on the way he approached a group of people who were
crying and viewing a dead body. He viewed the dead body and identified it as
that of his neighbour, the deceased. The police arrived at the scene and
removed the body. However, on the following day while at his place of work he
was confronted and arrested by police officers before being charged in court with
the present offence which he did not commit.
7. A consideration of the evidence in its totality reveals that it was not in dispute that
indeed the deceased was on the material day attacked and fatally injured by an
individual or individuals after leaving a changaa drinking den. The attack was
gruesome such that the seriousness and degree of the fatal injury lept no doubt
in the mind of this court that the assailant/ assailants was driven by malice
aforethought into committing the offence.
8. The basic issue presenting itself for determination was whether the Accused was
the person who attacked and fatally injured the deceased. The fact that they
were together with others at a changaa drinking den was not disputed. Neither
was it disputed that the revelers became intoxicated, argumentative, quarrelsome
and abusive with each other while at that place.
9. There being no obligations on the part of the Accused to prove his innocence, the
burden to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt fell squarely on the
prosecution. In that regard, none of the key prosecution witnesses i.e. James
[PW1], Stephen [PW2] and Joshua [PW4] linked the Accused to the attack on
the deceased, hence to the present offence.
10. Although the investigations officer [PW6] indicated that the investigations
revealed that the deceased was attacked and fatally injured by the Accused after
leaving the changaa drinking den, the prosecution did not call any witness to
confirm as much thereby implying that the investigations officer relied on hearsay
to connect the Accused with the fatal attack and charge him with the present
offence.
11. In essence, there was no evidence at all to link the Accused with the
offence. The prosecution did not therefore discharge its burden to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the Accused was the person who attacked and fatally
injured the deceased. In the circumstances, this court finds the accused NOT
GUILTY as charged and acquits him accordingly.
Dated and Delivered this 19
th day of February 2026
HON. J. R. KARANJAH,
JUDGE
1. Pursuant to the information dated 22
nd May 202, filed herein by the Director of
Public Prosecution the Accused, Isaac Mutai is charged with murder of Patrick
Kipleting Kimei [deceased] on 3
rd May 2020 at Chepkunyuk Village, Nandi
County.
2. The case for the prosecution was that the Accused and the deceased and others
including James Kiprotich [PW1], Stephen Choge [PW2], and Joshua
Kipkoech Samoei [PW4] were all village mates and neighbours. On the
material date during the day time they converged at a neighbouring homestead
which was known as an illicit liquor [changaa] den to partake the stuff. In the
process, they became argumentative and abusive to each other, more so, the
accused and the deceased.
3. Most of the revelers became intoxicated and left for their respective homes
leaving the deceased behind. In the evening hours, the area chief Silvanus
Koros [PW3] received a phone call from one Abraham regarding a person found
lying down on a road and bleeding. The chief proceeded to the scene and
confirmed that the person had already passed away and was the deceased
herein.
4. Police officers arrived at the scene and removed the body of the deceased to the
mortuary at Kapsabet Referral Hospital where a post mortem was carried out by
Dr. Evans Kibiwott [PW5] on the 5
th May 2020, after which he compiled and
signed the necessary post mortem report [P. Exhibit 1] showing that the
deceased died from severe brain trauma caused by repeated blow with a heavy
object.
5. The police investigations carried out by Sgt. Benjamin Nyongesa [PW6],
indicated that at the changaa drinking den the deceased picked a quarrel with the
Accused over allegations of defamation. He [deceased] then walked away
without any confrontation. He was however followed from behind by the
Accused who then attacked and assaulted him. The Accused was therefore
arrested and charged with the present offence.
6. In his defence, the Accused denied the offence and indicated that he was at the
changaa den on the material date with other revelers. He remained at the place
upto 5:00pm when he left and proceeded to his home in a state of drankardness.
He lay on a sofa set and was overcome by sleep. He was awakened by screams
and shouts in the neighbourhood. He left his house and proceeded to where the
screams emanated but on the way he approached a group of people who were
crying and viewing a dead body. He viewed the dead body and identified it as
that of his neighbour, the deceased. The police arrived at the scene and
removed the body. However, on the following day while at his place of work he
was confronted and arrested by police officers before being charged in court with
the present offence which he did not commit.
7. A consideration of the evidence in its totality reveals that it was not in dispute that
indeed the deceased was on the material day attacked and fatally injured by an
individual or individuals after leaving a changaa drinking den. The attack was
gruesome such that the seriousness and degree of the fatal injury lept no doubt
in the mind of this court that the assailant/ assailants was driven by malice
aforethought into committing the offence.
8. The basic issue presenting itself for determination was whether the Accused was
the person who attacked and fatally injured the deceased. The fact that they
were together with others at a changaa drinking den was not disputed. Neither
was it disputed that the revelers became intoxicated, argumentative, quarrelsome
and abusive with each other while at that place.
9. There being no obligations on the part of the Accused to prove his innocence, the
burden to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt fell squarely on the
prosecution. In that regard, none of the key prosecution witnesses i.e. James
[PW1], Stephen [PW2] and Joshua [PW4] linked the Accused to the attack on
the deceased, hence to the present offence.
10. Although the investigations officer [PW6] indicated that the investigations
revealed that the deceased was attacked and fatally injured by the Accused after
leaving the changaa drinking den, the prosecution did not call any witness to
confirm as much thereby implying that the investigations officer relied on hearsay
to connect the Accused with the fatal attack and charge him with the present
offence.
11. In essence, there was no evidence at all to link the Accused with the
offence. The prosecution did not therefore discharge its burden to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the Accused was the person who attacked and fatally
injured the deceased. In the circumstances, this court finds the accused NOT
GUILTY as charged and acquits him accordingly.
Dated and Delivered this 19
th day of February 2026
HON. J. R. KARANJAH,
JUDGE