[1984] KECA 109 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge failed to properly consider section 13(4) of the Penal Code, which mandates that intoxication must be taken into account in determining whether the accused formed the specific intent necessary for a murder conviction. The judge's summing up to the assessors was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1984] KECA 109 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Beth Katile w/o Charles Munyao; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 95 of 1982
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; murder conviction quashed; substituted conviction for manslaughter; lenient sentence imposed.
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Manslaughter, Intoxication Defence, Criminal Intent, Summing Up to Assessors
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Beth Katile w/o Charles Munyao
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defence of intoxication was properly considered in determining the appellant's intent for murder.
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in disagreeing with the assessors' opinion regarding the appellant's responsibility for the deceased's death.
- 3 Whether the summing up to the assessors was adequate and in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge failed to properly consider section 13(4) of the Penal Code, which mandates that intoxication must be taken into account in determining whether the accused formed the specific intent necessary for a murder conviction. The judge's summing up to the assessors was inadequate in this regard, and the judge erred in concluding that the appellant had formed the requisite intent prior to becoming intoxicated. As a result, the conviction for murder could not stand. The court substituted a conviction for manslaughter, taking into account the appellant's special circumstances and imposing a lenient sentence from the date of conviction to the date of the...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; murder conviction quashed; substituted conviction for manslaughter; lenient sentence imposed.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction for murder is quashed and the sentence of death set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL APPEAL 95 OF 82
BETH KATILE W/O CHARLES MUNYAO ………….. APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………. RESPONDENT
(CORAM: KNELLER, JA, CHESONIAND NYARANGI, AG. JJ.A.)
Murder - Defence of intoxication - whether available where the necessary intent for murder is established - effect of inadequate summation by the judge to the assessors.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of her husband. She had been charged together with Paul Musila Ndunda of jointly murdering her husband. Musila offered a plea of guilty to a lesser charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder and was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
The appellant was tried at the High Court and at the close of the case, the trial judge made a full summing up to the assessors asking for their opinion on three questions namely: had the Republic proved beyond any reasonable doubt the husband was dead? That he was unlawfully killed? And that it was the appellant who unlawfully killed him? The assessors found on the affirmative on the first two questions but on the third question found that the appellant had not been proved by the same standards to be responsible for the deceased’s death. The trial judge disagreed with the assessor’s opinions and went ahead to convict the appellant.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that, inter alia, the trial judge erred in law in improperly holding that the appellant had formed the necessary specific intent prior to becoming intoxicated.
Held: (i) That the learned judge failed to take into account section 13(4) of the Penal Code which requires the courts to take into account intoxication for purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention specific or otherwise without which he would not be guilty of the offence. (ii) The appeal was allowed, conviction of murder quashed and the sentence of death set aside. In lieu thereof the appellant was convicted of manslaughter and on consideration of her special circumstances, a lenient sentence running from the date of conviction to the date of appeal decision imposed.
Cases Referred to:
1. Sharmpal Singh Pritam Singh -v- Republic (1960) EA 762, 780 (CA-K).
2. Mancini –v- D PP, (1942) AC 1. Saa/GBS