https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/375

Republic v Achieng (Criminal Case E485 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 375 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 375 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Port Victoria Law Courts Criminal Case E485 of 2024 AK Njeru, SRM July 29, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Metodi Achieng Accused Judgment 1.The accused has been charged with the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm, contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code. Particulars are that on 12th December 2024 at around 2030hrs in Mudoma village, Mudoma sublocation in Samia Sub-County within Busia County, the accused willfully and unlawfully assaulted Fredrick Odongo Nyengenye, thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm. 2.Accused denied the charge and the prosecution presented its evidence as follows: 3.PW1 Fredrick Odongo Nyengenye stated that on 12/12/24 at around 10.00pm while he was sitting outside under a full moon, he heard his dogs barking, then saw the accused pass by without greeting him. he asked him why he had not even greeted him, and the accused merely passed. After a short while, the accused, who is his neighbour and has known him for years, returned and spoke to him, calling him a fool and told him to come near him and find out. The accused then, with a rungu, hit him with it on his face at the top of his eyelid, causing an injury which bled. He screamed for help and his children Stephen and Jessica came and found him bleeding. The following morning he reported the matter to the police and was treated and P3 Form filed. It was not true that he attacked the accused first with a Rungu. Accused’s relatives witnessed the incident but refused to record their statements with the police fearing retribution from accused. 4.PW2 Stephen Odhiambo. Complainant’s son stated that on the material night and day, accused passed by their home. While inside the house with his sister, he then heard his father, who was sitting under a mango tree outside the house, ask who that was that was passing by his home without greeting the owner. He then heard a person respond, challenging his father to come near him so they could fight like men. He stepped outside the house and saw his father bleeding from an injury on his head. The accused is their neighbour. There were security lights and electricity outside their house at the time. He saw the accused at the time, who was in jeans and a luminous green shirt, as the one he wore in court. 5.PW3 Jessica Achieng, a daughter to the complainant, testified to have been with her brother inside the house on the material night when they heard noises outside where their father sat. She heard her father ask who that was that was passing by his homestead without greeting the owner. Then she heard the accused, whose voice she knew well, respond that there was nothing her father would do to him even if he passed by. She later saw her father bleeding from an injury on his head. She did not see the accused assault her father but later saw him with a rungu at their home. 6.PW4 110707 PC Binti Rashid, the investigating officer stated that vide OB no. 7/13/12/2024, complainant reported being assaulted while at his home the previous day at around 8.00pm by accused herein. Complainant reported to have been sitting outside when accused passed by without greeting him, and when asked about it, accused had used a rungu to hit the complainant with the same on his head. Complainant also complained of the accused assaulting him with the rungu on his shoulders and ribs. Complainant was treated at Nangina Hospital; treatment notes were filled, and she was issued with a P3 form, which was equally filled. She recorded the witnesses' statements and arrested the accused herein. The rungu that was the weapon of assault was never recovered at the time of the accused’s arrest. 7.PW5 Edwin Immo, a clinical officer at Nangina Dispensary, testified to having examined the complainant on 13/12/2024 at around 2.30pm with a history of having been assaulted by a person well known to him the previous day at around 8.30pm. complainant had a blood-stained black and white striped T-shirt with blood-stained grey trousers. On examination, the complainant had tenderness on the right temporal region, a stitched wound above the right eye, a swollen nasal bridge, tenderness on the chest wall, and a tender and bruised right shoulder, with the estimated age of injuries being approximately 16hours. He noted the probable type of weapon used as a blunt object and assessed the degree of injury as harm. He filled the P3 Form, which he produced as Pex no. 2, while the treatment book he produced as Pex no. 1. The complainant at the time of examination had sutures on his wounds; hence, he had been treated elsewhere. 8.Accused was found with a case to answer and gave his evidence as follows: 9.DW1 Metodi Ochieng admitted knowing the complainant as his neighbour and grandfather. That on the material date he could not recall what transpired but that on 9/12/2024 at around 8.00 pm, complainant came to his home and began cutting down his trees. He reported the matter to the village elder. On 10/12/24, the village elder informed him that the matter had been discussed with the Assistant Chief, who authorised the accused to cut complainant’s trees as well as a payback. The same was sanctioned by Benard, complainant’s brother. Later on 12/12/24, complainant confronted his brother Bernard about why he was condoning accused’s behaviour. The complainant then turned to him armed with a Rungu and tried to hit him with it when Bernard intervened. Bernard grabbed the complainant and disarmed him, and the complainant reported instead that it was he who had attacked and assaulted him. he was later arrested for this offence, which he did not commit. He had no evidence to corroborate his testimony. Analysis and Determination 10.Having carefully considered all the evidence on record, the prosecution bore the duty to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To satisfy this threshold, the prosecution ought to provea.That complainant sustained injuries amounting to harmb.That accused inflicted the said injuries unlawfully and willingly see the case of Ndaa vs Republic [1984] KLR 11.On whether or not the complainant suffered injuries amounting to bodily harm, The medical evidence of PW5 was uncontroverted and was fully supported by the treatment notes and the P3 Form. The injuries were assessed as harm and were consistent with an assault by a blunt object. 12.The remaining issue is whether it was the accused who inflicted those injuries. I find the evidence of PW1 credible and reliable. He knew the accused well as his neighbour, making this a case of recognition rather than identification of a stranger. His account of the assault remained consistent throughout his testimony. His evidence was materially corroborated by PW2 and PW3, who heard the verbal confrontation immediately before the assault and found the complainant bleeding moments later. PW2 further placed the accused at the scene under sufficient lighting, while PW3 recognized the accused's voice and later saw him carrying a rungu. Their evidence lends considerable support to the complainant's testimony.The medical findings are entirely consistent with the complainant's narration that he was struck with a blunt object. The prosecution evidence therefore forms a coherent and consistent chain pointing irresistibly to the accused as the perpetrator. 13.The defence raised by the accused is, in my considered view, a mere denial. Although he alleged that the complainant had attacked him first and that Bernard intervened, he called no witness to support that version despite Bernard being an alleged eyewitness. No evidence was produced to show that the accused sustained any injuries or made any complaint following the alleged attack. His account does not satisfactorily explain the injuries sustained by the complainant and leaves the prosecution evidence intact. 14.I have also considered the minor discrepancies regarding the exact time of the assault. The charge sheet indicates the time of the offence as 10.00pm, while the witnesses state it was around 8.00pm. In my view, they are inconsequential and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. They neither affect the credibility of the witnesses nor create any reasonable doubt. It is not every contradiction that warrants rejection of evidenceIn Uganda Court of Appeal in Twehangane Alfred Vs Uganda, Crim. App. No 139 of 2001, [2003] UGCA, 6, . the court held,“With regard to contradictions in the prosecution’s case the law as set out in numerous authorities is that grave contradictions unless satisfactorily explained will usually but not necessarily lead to the evidence of a witness being rejected. The court will ignore minor contradictions unless the court thinks that they point to deliberate untruthfulness or if they do not affect the main substance of the prosecution’s case.” 15.I am satisfied that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully assaulted the complainant, thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm. 16.Accordingly, I find the accused, Metodi Ochieng, guilty of the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code and convict him accordingly under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT PORT VICTORIA THIS 29TH JULY 2026HON. ANNE NJERUSRM