Republic v Gwandaru (Criminal Case E010 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8969 (KLR) (Crim) (25 June 2026) (Judgment)

Republic v Gwandaru (Criminal Case E010 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8969 (KLR) (Crim) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8969 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Criminal Criminal Case E010 of 2025 KW Kiarie, J June 25, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Nancy Wanjiru Gwandaru Accused Judgment 1.Nancy Wanjiru Gwandaru is charged with two counts of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on the 5th day of March 2025, at Canary village, in Shamata Location, Aberdares sub-county, within Nyandarua County, he unlawfully murdered John Mwangi Maina. 3.The deceased and the accused, who were husband and wife, went to a bar to drink and apparently had a disagreement. When they returned home, a fight broke out, resulting in the deceased being fatally injured. 4.Nancy Wanjiru Gwandaru, the accused, stated that she went with the deceased to a pub; they drank alcohol, and then a quarrel broke out. They returned home, where their argument turned into a fight. She then sought shelter at another woman's house, from where she was arrested the next day. 5.The issues to be determined are:a)Whether the accused caused the death of the deceased, andb)Whether the offence of murder was proven against the accused. 6.Alcoholism is a major issue in Nyandarua County, affecting numerous households. It is no longer solely a man's problem; women are increasingly impacted, too. This observation, which I have noticed over the approximately one year I have served here, exemplifies this trend. 7.Mary Nyaguthie Maina (PW1) is the mother of the deceased. Around 10 a.m. on March 5, 2025, she was in Subukia when she received a call from her son, who said that his wife (the accused) was drinking at a pub and he sounded intoxicated. Later, at approximately 2 p.m., Mama Sabina called to report that the accused and her husband were fighting and that the deceased had been stabbed in the leg. When she returned home at about 5 p.m., she found her son deceased. 8.Susan Kimani (PW 5) arrived at the deceased's home around 5 p.m., intending to visit his mother. She found the deceased lying on a mattress, and he told her that his wife had stabbed him in the leg. She then notified his mother (PW1). A female in the house told her that PW1 was not present. 9.Dr Felix Masongo Nyasani conducted the post-mortem on the deceased's body. He observed that the deceased had external superficial burns on the upper half of the body, and some burnt fabric was sticking to the body. The right lower jaw was fractured with dislodged teeth. There were cut wounds over the chin and at the back of the head. There was another cut wound on the left temple, on the forehead and on the left forearm. There were multiple cut wounds on the scalp and contusions on the frontal and the back of the head. There was bleeding in the brain. There was extensive charring of the head, but there were no depositions in the airline. He therefore concluded that the death resulted from severe head injuries secondary to blunt head trauma. 10.Esther Wanijra Kiarie (PW3) testified that the accused arrived at her home around 8 p.m., asking for shelter, claiming that someone wanted to kill her child. She was arrested the next day at PW3’s residence. 11.Nancy Wanjiru Gwandaru, the accused, stated that she went to a pub to drink with the accused, but they had a disagreement. The deceased slapped her, and she returned home. The deceased followed her and began to assault her. She left her house around 2 p.m., picked up her child from school, and took refuge at Mama Murimi's home. She was arrested there the next day, and blood samples were collected from her. 12.The prosecution did not call any eyewitnesses. The evidence against the accused is circumstantial. In the case of Mohamed & 3 Others vs Republic [2005]1KLR 722, Osiemo, Judge, restated what circumstantial evidence is, as follows:Circumstantial evidence means evidence that tends to prove a fact indirectly by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. 13.Earlier, in the case of Republic vs Kipkering arap Koskei & Another 16 EACA 135, the Court of Appeal held:To justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. 14.In this case, although the accused contended that she did not cause the death of the deceased, the evidence on record clearly shows that the accused was the cause of his death. 15.To convict for murder based on the evidence on record, the prosecution must prove the existence of malice aforethought. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, malice aforethought is defined as:The requisite mental state for common-law murder, encompassing any one of the following (1) the intent to kill (2) the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm (3) extremely reckless difference to the value of human life (the so-called “abandoned and malignant heart”), or (4) the intent to commit a dangerous felony (which leads to culpability under the felony-murder rule). 16.Section 206 of the Penal Code gives instances when malice aforethought may be proved. It provides:Malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by evidence proving any one or more of the following circumstances—(a)an intention to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not;(b)knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to some person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not, although such knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused;(c)an intent to commit a felony;(d)an intention by the act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or attempted to commit a felony. 17.The accused and the deceased were alone, with evidence indicating they had both consumed alcohol before the incident. It remains unclear what transpired between them leading up to the accused inflicting the fatal injuries, but the evidence confirms they fought. I conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the crime of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore acquit the accused of that charge. Nonetheless, I find that the evidence sufficiently establishes the offence of manslaughter under section 205 of the Penal Code. As a result, I find her guilty and convict her accordingly. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE