Republic v Munyovi (Criminal Case E081 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 4315 (KLR) (1 April 2026) (Judgment)

Republic v Munyovi (Criminal Case E081 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 4315 (KLR) (1 April 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 4315 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kapsabet Criminal Case E081 of 2021 JR Karanja, J April 1, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Wesly Munyovi Accused Judgment 1.The Accused, Wesley Munyovi, faces a murder charge Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code, in that on the night of 23rd/ 24th June 2021 at Sinendet-Chesumei within Nandi County murdered James Mateche alias Jimmy [deceased]. 2.It was the case for the prosecution that on the material night a funeral ceremony was in progress at a particular homestead where a group of young-men were playing loud music such that the area assistant chief, Sylvester Keino [PW1] had to go there and tell the youngmen to stop playing the music and go home. 3.On the following day the assistant chief was notified of the dead body of the deceased having been found outside the home compound of Vincent Kipkemboi [PW4], a cousin to the deceased. The Chief noted that the body had a cut injury on the head. He then contacted the police. Vincent [PW4] attended the funeral ceremony in the company of the deceased at about 10:00pm and left an hour later at about 11:00pm after the deceased had already left. He [PW4] went home, but on the following day found the body of the deceased near his home. He alerted a sister of the deceased who arrived at the scene and screamed. The two called a Village Elder who in turn alerted the Assistant Chief. He [PW4] noted that the body of the deceased had a head injury. 4.Among the group of youngmen at the funeral ceremony commonly known as “disco matanga” were Dancan Kiprop [PW2] and Boniface Kibet [PW3]. They were in the company of others including one Brighton Amaliko and one Lewis. Dancan [PW2] and Lewis left the ceremony at about midnight and on their way home came across Wesley [the Accused], one Kisigani and one Kibet, who were allegedly carrying machete [panga] and sticks which they used to attack Dancan and his group. 5.After escaping from the scene of the attack Dancan [PW2] and Brighton proceeded to their respective homes, but on the following day Dancan was informed by one Deno [Dennis] that Jimmy [deceased] was found dead. He [PW2] had seen the deceased at the funeral ceremony. He later learnt that the Accused was arrested after being suspected of having killed the deceased. 6.Boniface [PW3] proceeded to the funeral ceremony together with his school mates including the Accused, one Dennis Liyale and one Kelvin Kisigani. While they were all there the Assistant Chief arrived later and stopped the “disco-matanga.” He [PW3] accompanied by Dennis, Duncan and Danston went home, but returned to the funeral ceremony in search of his [PW3] brother. In the process, Boniface [PW3] and his group met the Accused and his group carrying long sticks which they used to attack the first group. 7.The Accused used his long stick to attack and assault Dancan and others. He also attacked Boniface [PW3], but was restrained by the deceased with whom they fought and used his long stick to hit and cause him [deceased] to fall down.On the following day the Accused and Kisigani were arrested by the Assistant Chief while in school. 8.A postmortem on the body of the deceased was carried out on the 25th June 2021 by Dr. Evans Ngetich Kibiwott [PW5] who thereafter compiled the necessary report showing that the deceased died from severe head brain injury secondary to trauma due to high energy blunt trauma. The suspected weapon or object used in the fatal attack of the deceased was said to be a wooden stick [P. Exhibit 1] and was produced herein by Sgt. Moffat Musungu [PW7] on behalf of CPL. Kanyi, both attached to DCI Nandi Central. 9.The Government Analyst, Polycap Lutta Kweyu [PW6], received the blood stained suspect stick and a blood stained cap from the DCI Nandi-Central for purposes of forensic examination. Thereafter, he compiled his report dated 10th September 2021 showing that the DNA profile generated from the blood stains on the suspect stick and on the cap matched the DNA profile generated from the blood sample of the deceased. 10.It was on the basis of the foregoing prosecution evidence that the Accused was charged with the present offence which he denied and contended in his defence that after the area Assistant Chief arrived at the funeral ceremony and told them to put off the music and go home, he left with his group and on the way they met another group of about fifteen [15] youngmen holding wooden sticks and blocking the walking path. A scuffle erupted between the two groups during which time the deceased attacked him [Accused] as he went to the rescue of one Kibet. He [Accused] had a thin stick which he used to defend himself during the scuffle. 11.The incident occurred in darkness, the Accused and his colleagues escaped from the violent scene and went to their respective homes, but on the following day the area chief and police officers went to his school and arrested him. He further contended that he did not commit the offence and could not tell who actually killed the deceased. 12.Basically, a consideration of the evidence in its totality indicates that the death of the deceased was unfortunate and clearly not intended in as much as it was the result of a violent confrontation between two groups of young men on their way to their respective homes after attending a “disco-matanga” within their neighbourhood which was brought to an end by the area’s Assistant Chief. 13.The evidence showed that each and every member of the two groups participated in the unlawful transaction which involved fighting and assaulting each other such that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt through the prosecution evidence that the fatal blow inflicted upon the deceased by a blunt or sharp object came from the Accused. Any one of the brawling and fighting youngsters could have inflicted the fatal or killer blow against the deceased who was also a participant in the unlawful criminal transaction. 14.Although the prosecution in its final or closing submissions stated that the Accused was positively identified as the “killer” assailant meaning that he was the person who inflicted the fatal blow upon the deceased, the evidence by the prosecution witness Dancan [PW2] and Boniface [PW3] did not and could not have established the fact due to its contradictory nature as to which particular person inflicted the fatal blow and also due to the fact that the offence occurred in conditions which were not favourable for identification of the actual culprit. 15.Indeed, the presence of moonlight during the hours of darkness would provide favourable conditions for identification if the intensity of the moonlight was high and adequate opportunity to make a positive identity of a suspect existed. Herein, none of the prosecution witness talked of the intensity of the moonlight at the material time or whether there was adequate opportunity to positively identify the culprit. 16.It was not sufficient for Boniface [PW3] to merely say during Cross-Examination that there was moonlight without explaining or indicating its intensity and how it made him identify the person who inflicted the fatal blow upon the deceased using either stick or panga. These were the objects being used by the fighting groups at the material time. 17.It is instructure to note that Dancan [PW2] never mentioned the presence of moonlight on that material night and that both Dancan [PW2] and Boniface [PW3] who were the key prosecution witnesses on the alleged identification of the Accused indicated that they did not know the person who actually inflicted the killer or fatal blow upon the deceased. 18.The prosecution evidence against the Accused was merely to link him to the fighting group of youngsters, but not the cause of the deceased’s death. In any event, the key prosecution witnesses were also linked to the fighting groups.The circumstances of this case and the conditions under which it happened were incapable of showing with utmost certainty that the Accused was the person who actually caused the death of the deceased. 19.In fact, the Accused was not under any obligation to prove his innocence. He admitted having been a member of one of the fighting groups, but vehemently denied that he was the person who killed the deceased during the violent fight. He said that he could not tell who killed the deceased. 20.All in all, the prosecution evidence against the Accused was insufficient and lacking in credibility such that the ingredients, of murder were not established and proved against him. If anything, what was established was the offence of manslaughter and in any case, not against the Accused.It is therefore the ultimate finding of this court that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused is herein found not guilty as charged and acquitted accordingly to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026HON. J. R. KARANJAH,JUDGE