https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12397

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E017 OF 2025 ( MURDER)** **REPUBLIC…………………………………………………PROSECUTION** **-V/S-** **LAMECK NYONGESA CHONGE……………………………. ACCUSED** **JUDGMENT** 1. The accused person, Lameck Nyongesa Chonge, faces a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read together with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on the 4th day of October 2024 at around 1003 hours at Bumula area in Bumula Sub-County within Bungoma County, jointly with another not before court murdered Silas Juma Lukongo Sikanga. 2. The prosecution called 6 witnesses to support its case. The accused gave a sworn statement when put on his defence. **PROSECUTION CASE** 1. PW1, Diana Naliaka, testified that she was a 74-year-old widow and the wife of the deceased, Silas Juma Lukongo Sikanga. On 4th October 2024 at about 9.00 a.m., she was alone in her house when she heard a loud bang. Ongoing outside, she saw the accused, whom she knew as Chonge, assaulting her husband with a piece of timber inside a maize plantation approximately 20 metres from her house. The deceased had already fallen to the ground and was bleeding from the nose, mouth, and ears. As she moved closer, she saw a total of five men, three of whom were actively assaulting the deceased while the other two were present, holding timber sticks. She identified three of the assailants as Chonge - the accused, Job, and Aaron, while the remaining two were unknown to her. She stated that the accused first struck the deceased with a hoe, causing him to fall, and thereafter continued hitting him with a timber stick, while the others struck him with timber sticks. She asked the accused why he was beating her husband, but he did not respond. She screamed for help, prompting the assailants to flee as neighbours responded. She stated that one timber stick was later recovered by the police. 2. PW1 further testified that a boda boda rider assisted in transporting the deceased to Bumula Sub-County Hospital, as she was too weak to accompany him. The deceased had succumbed to his injuries. 3. She testified that she had known the accused since his childhood, as a neighbour and in-law, because her daughter was married into his family. They lived close to each other, had never quarrelled, and enjoyed a cordial relationship. She identified the accused in court as the person she had seen assaulting her husband. 4. During cross-examination, PW1 maintained that the incident occurred at about 9.00 a.m., after she heard a loud noise and went outside. She said the deceased was already lying on the ground, groaning, when she reached the scene. She reiterated that although five people were present, only three actively assaulted the deceased, while the other two fled when she arrived. She stated that she saw the accused clearly, describing him as wearing a blue T-shirt, and also saw Job before he fled. She testified that the accused repeatedly struck the deceased on the head, while the other assailants hit him in the ribs. According to her, the assault lasted approximately 15 minutes. She further confirmed that earlier that morning, at about 8.00 a.m., the accused had taken tea with the deceased outside their house and that there had been no disagreement between them. She denied any land dispute with the accused and reiterated that they had maintained a good relationship prior to the incident. 5. PW2, Rael Machuma Juma, testified that she was 50 years old and lived in Chwele. She stated that she had travelled to Bumula to attend the funeral of her brother-in-law and had remained there. On 4th October 2024 at about 10.00 a.m., as the family prepared to collect the deceased’s body from the mortuary, she decided to visit her parents before leaving. As she approached the homestead through a maize plantation, she heard repeated sounds resembling something being struck. Initially believing someone was killing a snake, she hurried towards Pw1’s house. Before reaching the house, she saw five young men emerge from the maize plantation. She recognised three of them as Chonge (the accused), Aaron, and Job, while the other two were unknown to her. She stated that the accused emerged first, carrying a hoe/jembe, while the others carried pieces of timber. She asked them three times what they had been hitting, but none responded. Instead, they looked at her harshly before leaving the compound. 6. PW2 further testified that she then heard PW1, Diana, screaming that they had killed the deceased. She rushed to the maize plantation, where she found Silas Juma Sikanga Lukongo lying on the ground, bleeding profusely and shaking. She screamed for help, then proceeded to Bumula Police Station, where she made a report and recorded a statement. On returning, she found that the deceased had already been taken to hospital. She followed him to the hospital, where she learnt that he had succumbed to his injuries. 7. PW2 identified the accused in court as Chonge, stating that he was her neighbour, had been known to her since childhood, and had assisted the family during funeral preparations by carrying firewood. She testified that their families were neighbours, with their clan boundaries adjoining, and that she had never quarrelled with the accused or his family. She also identified Job and Aaron as people she knew from the locality who referred to her as their aunt. 8. She further stated that the deceased was lying approximately 20 metres inside the maize plantation. According to her, PW1 was outside, asking the assailants why they were beating the deceased, before she realised what had happened and began screaming. PW2 identified a timber stick recovered at the scene, stating that it resembled the one carried by the accused, and observed what appeared to be a brownish blood stain on one side of it. 9. During cross-examination, PW2 reiterated that the incident occurred at about 10.00 a.m. and that she encountered all five young men together as they emerged from the maize plantation. She maintained that the accused was carrying both a hoe and a piece of timber, while the others had timber sticks. She stated that one timber stick had been left at the scene. She further testified that the maize crop was tall, obstructing a clear view from outside the plantation, and confirmed that her family had no dispute with the accused’s family. 10. Upon re-examination, PW2 explained that although the maize was tall, one could see into the plantation by moving closer because it was planted in rows with spaces between them. She added that there was nothing else in the plantation apart from the maize. 11. PW3, Patrick Wanjala, testified that he was a 73-year-old farmer from Nyandingwa Village, Bumula. He stated that the deceased, Silas Juma, was his brother.On 15th October 2024, he attended the mortuary at Bungoma County Referral Hospital, where he identified the body of the deceased before the post-mortem examination was conducted on the body of Silas Juma. 12. PW4, Praxidis Nafula Okumu, testified that her husband’s home was in Bumula and that on 4th October 2024 at about 11.00 a.m., she was at the family homestead during funeral preparations following the deaths of her father-in-law and another family member. After leaving the bathroom, she passed by her father-in-law, Silas Juma, who was plucking vegetables. Shortly thereafter, she heard repeated sounds of something being struck, which initially led her to believe that her father-in-law was chasing or beating a cow inside the maize plantation. She went outside with her niece-in-law, Florence, to check what was happening. 13. PW4 stated that she found her father-in-law lying on the ground, bleeding from the back of the head, nose, and mouth. She observed three young men walking away quickly, carrying wooden sticks, but could not see their faces. She also saw another man standing near the deceased. She identified him as Chonge, whom she knew as a neighbour and whom she referred to as her brother-in-law out of respect. She testified that when she asked him, “My in-law Chonge, what have you done to Baba?”, he responded, “We have finished him.” 14. PW4 further testified that she immediately raised an alarm, which attracted neighbours, including Mwalimu Amos, Rael, Onesmus, and Meshack. They responded and took the deceased to Bumula Hospital for treatment. She later learnt that he had succumbed to his injuries. She subsequently left to collect the body for burial. 15. She stated that her house was approximately 30 metres from the scene. Between her house and the deceased’s location lay a maize plantation, a patch of traditional vegetables/chisaka, and a footpath. She explained that the deceased had fallen in the area where he had been plucking vegetables. She identified the accused in court as Chonge, whom she had known since her marriage into the family in 2001, and stated that he had been carrying a wooden stick, which she identified as the exhibit produced in court. She also recalled that the accused was wearing a black-and-white coat. 16. During cross-examination, PW4 testified that she did not hear the deceased cry for help, but only heard the sounds of repeated blows. She confirmed that the deceased had been plucking vegetables when she last saw him. She stated that when she came out, she saw the accused standing near the deceased, while the other three men were walking away carrying wooden sticks. She acknowledged that she did not witness the accused strike the deceased, but observed him carrying the wooden stick as he walked away from the scene. She further stated that the maize in the plantation had grown sufficiently to obstruct visibility and could hinder someone from seeing what was taking place within it. She also testified that Florence came outside after she raised the alarm, while another relative, Maurice, remained seated at the doorway because she had recently been discharged from hospital and was unable to shout loudly. 17. Upon re-examination, PW4 stated that Florence was an adult, though she did not know her current residence. She reiterated that she had seen the deceased alive, plucking vegetables, before hearing the sounds of the assault, and explained that the deceased was in the vegetable patch, where no maize had been planted. 18. PW5, Dr. Elly Kiplimo Kosgei, testified that he was a Medical Officer at Bungoma County Referral Hospital. He further stated that he conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of Silas Juma Lukongo Sikanga on 15th October 2024. He described the deceased as an 88-year-old African male of good nutritional status, with a masculine physique and approximately 5 feet 7 inches in height. He observed that the body was well preserved and exhibited rigor mortis. The external examination revealed bruising over the right temporal region and around the right eye. Internally, he found blood beneath the scalp, a depressed skull fracture, a massive subdural hematoma, and tearing of the brain tissue. Other body systems showed normal findings. Based on these findings, PW5 formed the opinion that the cause of death was severe head injury resulting from blunt force trauma to the head. He further testified that the body had been identified by Patrick Wanjala and Rael Juma before the examination. He produced the post-mortem as PExh. 2. 19. PW6, PC Evans Chesebe, testified that he was attached to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) at Webuye and had previously served as the investigating officer while stationed at Bumula. He stated that on 4th October 2024 at about 10.30 a.m., he received instructions from the Deputy OCS at Bumula Police Station following a report of a murder near the station. After informing the DCIO, he proceeded to Bumula Police Station, where he found that Rael Machuma had made the initial report in the Occurrence Book. He then visited the scene with the Deputy OCS and other officers. By the time they arrived, the deceased, Silas Juma Lukongo Sikanga, had already been taken to Bumula Sub-County Hospital. At the homestead, he was informed that the deceased had been assaulted by five people, led by a person known as Barichonge. He recovered a piece of firewood alleged to have been used to strike the deceased on the head and preserved it as an exhibit, although he observed that it bore no visible blood stains. 20. PW6 stated that they proceeded to the hospital, where they found that the deceased had died while receiving treatment. He observed a deep cut to the back of the deceased’s head. After recording witness statements, he attended the post-mortem examination on 15th October 2024, during which the doctor concluded that the cause of death was a severe head injury caused by blunt force trauma. 21. He further testified that although five suspects had been identified, they were not arrested immediately because funeral preparations and the burial of the deceased were ongoing at the homestead. He explained that the main suspect, Barichonge, was reported to be a grave digger with no fixed place of residence, making his arrest difficult. According to PW6, the accused remained at large until 23rd April 2025, when he was found intoxicated and arrested by fellow officers after being identified from photographs previously supplied by the family. He identified the accused in court as Lameck Nyongesa Chonge, stating that ‘Barichonge’ was his alias, and produced the recovered wooden stick as PExh. 1. 22. During cross-examination, PW6 testified that witnesses, including Praxidis, the deceased’s wife, and Rael, told him they had seen the accused assault the deceased. He stated that Rael identified three suspects by name, Aaron, Job, and Barichonge, while the remaining suspects had not been apprehended. He acknowledged that the deceased and some of the suspects belonged to the same clan and that there were rumours within the community that the deceased was suspected of practising witchcraft. However, he admitted that the accused was not a member of the deceased’s family, had not quarrelled with the deceased, and that there was no known motive for the killing. 23. PW6 further testified that the maize at the scene was relatively short, as it was a second crop, and that the witnesses did not intervene because they were frightened, noting that one witness was approximately 80 years old. He confirmed that the accused was arrested about six months after the incident while in Bumula, and acknowledged that he had not been hiding but was found in a public place. He also confirmed that the remaining suspects had not been traced. **DEFENCE CASE** 1. DW1, Lameck Chonge Nyongesa, the accused, testified that he resided in Bumula and earned a living by making bricks and constructing mud houses. He denied murdering the deceased. He further testified that on the material day he attended funeral ceremonies in the locality after accompanying a colleague, Evans, whose relative, Lilian, was being buried. There were two funerals for related family members. After the burial, a visitor asked him where liquor could be obtained, and he accompanied the visitor to a nearby chang’aa den, about 400 metres away. While there, they heard people crying. They initially assumed the cries were from mourners, but the liquor seller went to investigate and later informed them that an elderly man had been assaulted and taken to hospital. 2. The accused testified that upon returning to the homestead, he was informed by family members that the deceased had been attacked by his own grandchildren, namely Job, Harun, and Shikuku. He remained at the homestead during the funeral arrangements and attended the second burial the following day. He stated that he was arrested on 4th March 2025 while waiting for a colleague at a shopping centre near the Administration Police post, having remained openly in the locality throughout the intervening period. 3. The accused maintained that he frequently worked as a grave digger at burials, had never quarrelled with the deceased, and was not related to the deceased’s family. He asserted that it would have been illogical for him to have killed the deceased and then openly return to participate in the funeral arrangements. He added that the maize at the scene had grown and that the other three persons named by the family had disappeared after the burial and were not present when he was arrested. 4. During cross-examination, the accused admitted that he was in Bumula on the day of the incident and knew the deceased as a neighbour. He denied being present during the assault and maintained that he had only gone to the chang’aa den. He acknowledged that one could walk through the maize plantation but insisted that there was no grudge between him and the deceased’s family, and claimed that the case had been fabricated against him. He further confirmed that he was charged in May 2025 following his arrest. 5. Upon re-examination, DW1 stated that four homesteads lay between his home and the deceased's. **SUBMISSIONS** 1. The prosecution submitted that it had proved the charge of murder against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, based on the evidence adduced by its witnesses. They relied on Anthony Ndegwa Ngari v Republic [2014] KECA 424 (KLR), in which the Court of Appeal affirmed that the prosecution must establish three elements of murder: the death of the deceased and its cause, that the accused committed the unlawful act causing the death, and that the act was committed with malice aforethought. 2. Regarding the facts and cause of death, the prosecution submitted that PW1 witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased on 4th October 2024, repeatedly striking him on the head with a piece of firewood before picking up a hoe and continuing the assault. They further submitted that the deceased was rushed to Bumula Sub-County Hospital with severe head injuries, where he was pronounced dead. The medical evidence of PW5, the pathologist, established that the deceased died from severe head injuries caused by blunt force trauma, while PW3 confirmed that he identified the deceased’s body before the post-mortem examination. The prosecution therefore contended that the death resulted from an unlawful act. 3. Regarding proof that the accused committed the unlawful act, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW4, both of whom identified the accused as one of the assailants. They submitted that the accused was well known to both witnesses, being a relative and neighbour, thereby eliminating the possibility of mistaken identity. They further argued that there was no evidence suggesting that either witness had any reason to falsely implicate the accused. Indeed, the prosecution pointed out that the accused himself acknowledged during his defence that the witnesses had no apparent motive to lie against him. The prosecution also invited the court to draw an adverse inference from the accused’s conduct after the incident, submitting that his disappearance from the locality until his eventual arrest supported the conclusion that he participated in the offence. 4. On malice aforethought, the prosecution submitted that the accused’s repeated blows to the deceased’s head with both a wooden stick and a hoe demonstrated an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. They argued that the nature of the attack and the resulting fatal injuries clearly established malice aforethought. The prosecution further contended that the accused’s defence was a mere denial that failed to displace the overwhelming prosecution evidence. 5. Accordingly, the prosecution urged the court to find that all the elements of the offence of murder had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, to convict the accused as charged, and to impose an appropriate sentence. 6. In their submissions, the defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the unlawful act causing the deceased’s death. On identification and participation, the defence argued that PW1’s evidence was unreliable because she claimed to have witnessed the assault from approximately 20 metres away, while the incident occurred inside a fully grown maize plantation. Counsel submitted that both PW1 and PW4 acknowledged that the maize obstructed visibility, making it doubtful that PW1 could have seen the accused assault the deceased as alleged. It was therefore contended that none of the prosecution witnesses actually witnessed the accused inflicting the fatal injuries. 7. The defence further questioned the prosecution’s investigation and the circumstances surrounding the accused’s arrest. They noted that PW6, the investigating officer, testified that the offence occurred on 4th October 2024, yet the accused was arrested only on 24th March 2025 at Bumula Centre, near the scene of the offence. Counsel pointed out that PW4 testified that the accused attended a nearby funeral immediately after the incident, while the other alleged assailants fled. Since PW6 also stated that the accused was well known as a grave digger who frequently attended funerals, the defence argued that there was no explanation for failing to arrest him immediately if he was indeed the principal suspect. Counsel further questioned why the accused, unlike the other alleged perpetrators, did not flee and remained openly in the locality for several months before his arrest. These circumstances, it was submitted, cast doubt on the accused’s involvement and should be resolved in his favour. 8. Regarding malice aforethought, the defence argued that the prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent. While PW1 testified that the accused assaulted the deceased with a hoe and a piece of timber, PW2 and PW4 stated that they saw the accused and the other alleged assailants walking away carrying pieces of timber. Counsel questioned how the investigating officer later recovered and produced a timber stick as the alleged murder weapon if, according to the eyewitnesses, the assailants had left with the weapons. It was submitted that this inconsistency undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case and suggested that the evidence had been fabricated. 9. The defence further emphasised that all the witnesses, including the accused, agreed that the accused and the deceased, as well as their respective families, enjoyed cordial relations, and that no evidence of any disagreement or motive for the alleged attack had been established. Counsel argued that, having failed to apprehend the actual perpetrators, the investigating officer arbitrarily charged the accused to appease the deceased’s relatives. 10. Accordingly, the defence submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and urged the court to acquit him. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. This court is to determine whether the ingredients of the offence of murder, as provided for under Section 203 of the Penal Code, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 2. Section 203 of the Penal Code under which the accused person is charged provides as follows: - Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder. 1. The provision sets out the elements of the offence of murder that must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal in Anthony Ndegwa Ngari v Republic [2014] KECA 424 (KLR) set out the elements of the offence of murder as follows: - “For the offence of murder, there are three elements which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. They are: (a) the death of the deceased and the cause of that death; (b) that the accused committed the unlawful act which caused the death of the deceased and (c) that the Accused had the malice aforethought.” **Whether the fact of death and cause of death of the deceased were proved** 1. There is no dispute that Silas Juma Lukongo Sikanga died. PW1, PW2 and PW4 saw him immediately after the assault and testified that he was rushed to Bumula Sub-County Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. PW3 identified his body before the post-mortem. PW5, Dr. Elly Kiplimo Kosgei, conducted the post-mortem examination and found extensive blunt-force injuries to the head, including bruising, a depressed skull fracture, a massive subdural hematoma and tearing of brain tissue. His opinion was that death resulted from a severe head injury caused by blunt-force trauma. Both the fact and the cause of death were proved. **Whether it was the accused who unlawfully caused the death of the deceased** 1. PW1 testified that after hearing a loud bang, she immediately went outside and saw the accused assaulting the deceased. She had known the accused since childhood, as a neighbour and relative by marriage, and had no difficulty recognising him. She further testified that only an hour earlier, at about 8.00 a.m., the accused had taken tea with the deceased. There was therefore no possibility of mistaken identity. 2. The law distinguishes between recognising and identifying a stranger. Recognition is generally more reliable, although courts are still required to exercise caution. In Anjononi & 2 others v Republic [1980] KECA 23 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that: “… recognition of an assailant is more satisfactory, more assuring, and more reliable than identification of a stranger because it depends upon the personal knowledge of the assailant in some form or other...” 1. I have carefully considered the defence argument that the maize plantation obstructed visibility. PW1 explained that she moved progressively closer to the scene. Her evidence was not that she observed the assault entirely from outside the plantation. Rather, she testified that as she approached, she clearly saw the accused repeatedly assaulting the deceased. Her testimony that the assault lasted approximately fifteen minutes afforded her sufficient opportunity to observe the assailants. 2. PW2’s evidence substantially corroborated PW1. Although she did not witness the blows being inflicted, she encountered five men immediately emerging from the plantation. She recognised the accused, Aaron and Job. She saw the accused carrying a jembe, while the others carried timber sticks. Moments later, she found the deceased lying gravely injured, with PW1 screaming that the assailants had killed him. 3. PW4’s evidence also corroborated PW1. She had seen the deceased alive moments earlier, plucking vegetables. Shortly thereafter, she heard repeated striking sounds. On reaching the scene, she found the deceased lying severely injured and observed the accused standing near him, carrying a timber stick, while the others walked away. More importantly, when she confronted the accused, asking, “What have you done to Baba?”, the accused allegedly replied, “We have finished him”. That statement was made at the scene immediately after the assault and was not shown to have been fabricated. It directly connects the accused to the fatal attack. 4. PW1, PW2 and PW4 all knew the accused well before the incident. None suggested any existing grudge. PW1 expressly stated that they enjoyed cordial relations, and PW2 similarly testified that there had never been any dispute between their families. This incident happened during the day in the morning. 5. The defence urged the court to find that, because visibility was partially obstructed by maize, the prosecution witnesses could not have observed the assault. This court does not agree. 6. PW2 clarified during re-examination that although the maize was tall, it was planted in rows with spaces between them, and visibility improved as one moved closer. PW4 likewise testified that the deceased had been plucking vegetables in an area adjacent to the maize, where maize itself had not been planted. These explanations substantially address the challenge mounted by the defence. 7. Minor discrepancies regarding the exact position of the deceased or whether a timber stick was recovered do not affect the substance of the prosecution case. It is settled that minor inconsistencies which do not go to the root of the prosecution case neither weaken nor invalidate otherwise credible evidence, as held in Twehangane Alfred vs. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2001, [2003] UGCA. 8. The defence also criticised the delay in arresting the accused. However, a delay in arrest is not, by itself, evidence of innocence. PW6 explained that the accused had no fixed abode and worked as a grave digger, moving from one funeral to another. Whether that explanation was entirely satisfactory is secondary, as the issue before the court is whether the evidence proves participation in the offence. Criminal liability is determined by evidence establishing guilt, not by the speed of arrest. 9. The accused’s defence amounted to a denial coupled with an alibi that he had attended funerals and later visited a chang’aa den. His account does not reasonably displace the prosecution evidence. 10. Although an accused bears no burden of proving an alibi, once credible evidence places him at the scene, the court must weigh the alibi against the prosecution evidence. In *Kiarie v Republic* [1984] KLR 739, the court held that: - “An alibi raises a specific defence and an accused person who puts forward an alibi as an answer to a charge preferred against him does not in law thereby assume any burden of proving that answer and it is sufficient if an alibi introduces into the mind of a court a doubt that is not unreasonable; *Said v Republic* [1963] EA 6.” 1. This court finds that the accused’s account was displaced by the consistent testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4, who independently placed him at the scene immediately before, during and immediately after the assault. 2. The defence also argued that no motive had been proved. Motive is generally immaterial where there is clear evidence identifying the offender. 3. Section 9(3) of the Penal Code expressly provides that: - Unless otherwise expressly declared, the motive by which a person is induced to do or omit to do an act, or to form an intention, is immaterial so far as regards criminal responsibility. 1. The Court of Appeal reiterated this principle in *Libambula v Republic* [2003] KLR 683 as follows: - “Motive becomes an important element in the chain on presumptive proof and where the case rests on purely circumstantial evidence. Motive of course, may be drawn from the facts, though proof of it is not essential to prove a crime.” 1. Consequently, the absence of an established motive does not weaken otherwise cogent direct evidence. 2. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, acting jointly with others not before the court, unlawfully assaulted the deceased and inflicted the fatal injuries. **Whether the accused acted with malice aforethought** 1. Malice aforethought is defined under Section 206 of the Penal Code. 2. The evidence demonstrates that the accused repeatedly struck an 88-year-old man on the head using dangerous blunt objects including a timber stick and a hoe. PW5 found catastrophic head injuries including a depressed skull fracture, massive subdural hemorrhage and tearing of brain tissue. 3. The head is an extremely vulnerable part of the human body. Repeatedly striking an elderly person on the head with a blunt weapon irresistibly demonstrates an intention either to kill or to cause grievous harm. 4. The court in *Republic v Tubere S/O Ochen* [1945] 12 EACA 63 held that: - “An inference of malice aforethought can be established by considering the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the manner in which the weapon was used and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the attack.” 1. Applying those principles, the repeated blows to the deceased's head with blunt weapons unmistakably establish malice aforethought within the meaning of Sections 206(a) and (b) of the Penal Code. 2. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution has proved the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, Lameck Nyongesa Chonge, is hereby found guilty of the offence of murder and is convicted accordingly. **Dated, Signed** and **Delivered** **Virtually** this **29th** day of **July 2026.** **R.E. OUGO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of: -** **Lameck Nyongesa Chonge/ Accused** **Miss Matere For the State** **Miss Lunani -For the Accused- Absent** **Wilkister/ Minah - C/A**