https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/368

Republic v Alamin (Criminal Case E161 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 368 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 368 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Lamu Law Courts Criminal Case E161 of 2026 FM Mulama, RM July 30, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Mohamed Alamin Accused Judgment A. Background. 1.Mohamed Alamin is charged with the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the Penal code. The particulars in support are that on the 15/6/2026 at around 1000hours at Swafaa area of Langoni location in Lamu the accused without any lawful excuse uttered the words, “Nitakumaliza leo, unafanya kazi na police” threatening to kill Francis Kalume while armed with a panga. 2.3 witnesses testified in the matter and at the close of the prosecution’s case the accused was found to have a case to answer and was placed on his defence and in his defence he elected to remain silent. The Prosecution’s Case. 3.It is the evidence of the complainant that on the material date at around 10am while at Lamu boys area when he saw the accused and another person and the accused told the complainant that he was the one setting them up with the police that they are selling bhang and he went on to tell him that his day had reached and then removed a panga from his waist and charged towards him forcing him to run for his safety and took refuge at the AP canteen and he called the police. 4.It was his testimony that the accused uttered the words complained off in the charge and did so while chasing him with a panga and his intention was to kill and/or injure him. He called the police and who came to his rescue and since he knew where they ordinarily smoke bhang from, he directed the police and found the accused and he showed the police and who arrested him. 5.Pw 1 Nurein Abdalla Mohamed is an eye witness. It was his testimony that on the material date he saw the complainant being chased by the accused who was at the time armed with a panga but he could not intervene. 6.Pw 3 PC Samson Katana was the arresting officer. He confirmed that the complainant led them to the place where the accused was arrested and at the time of the arrest the accused was not armed with the panga. B. Issue for Determination. 7.This court has identified the following sole issue for determination.a.Whether it is the accused who threatened Francis Kalume. C. Analysis and Determination. 8.To sustain a charge of threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the Penal Code the prosecution is required to establish the following ingredients of the charge:a.That the accused person without lawful excuse uttered words which amounted to a threat to kill the complainant or directly or indirectly causes any person to receive a threat whether in writing or not.b.The uttering of these words must be made in the context that the complainant perceives that he is under threat of losing his life.c.The context must come out in the evidence that will be adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the explanation given by the accused in his defence. 9.In the case of Phenias Njeru Koru vs Republic [2015] eKLR the court in restating the ingredients necessary to prove the charge of threatening to kill stated as follows;“The prosecution was therefore required to establish that the Appellant, without lawful excuse, uttered words which amounted to a threat to kill the complainant. It must also be established that the uttering of these words was made in the context that the complainants perceived that they were under threat of losing their lives. The context must come out in the evidence that will be adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the explanation given by the accused in his defence.” 10.A reading of section 223(1) the threats are not only to be by way of uttering the threat as indicated in the Phenias case, but also when a person directly or indirectly causes any person to receive, a threat, whether in writing or not. 11.In this case the accused not only uttered that “Nitakumaliza leo, unafanya kazi na police” directing these words to the complainant but attempted to actualize the threat by drawing a panga from his waist and chasing after the complainant and had to seek refuge at the AP police canteen and sort help from the police. 12.These words in their plain meaning demonstrate that the accused had the mens rea to inflict pain and ultimately kill the complainant and the word“kumaliza” in the circumstances meant kill by virtue that the accused drew his panga from his waist and chased after the complainant. 13.All these events were witnesses by Pw 2 who is an independent eye witness. 14.From the circumstances and the evidence which was not challenged by the accused, it is clear to my mind that the accused had all intents and purposes to injure the complainant for the reason that he chased after the complainant and were it not for the AP police canteen providing the much-needed rescue we could be speaking about something else. 15.This court is alive to the fact that recently a police officer attached to the DCI antinarcotics unit was stabbed by a man while he was in patrol with a colleague and as such threats are not mere words but those issuing threats have in instances actualized the threats by actual violence. 16.I am therefore satisfied that based on the evidence on record especially that of Pw 1 and 2 that the charge against the accused person has been proved to the required standard; that of beyond any reasonable doubt. D. Conclusion and Disposition. 17.The accused is thus guilty of the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the Penal Code and he is accordingly convicted in that count under section 215 of the CPC. 18.Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT LAMU LAW COURTS THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2026.F.M. MULAMARESIDENT MAGISTRATE.In the presence of:Court Assistant:- Abuswaleh.Idris Tomno for DPP.Mohamed Alamin.