Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E143 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 369 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E143 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 369 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 369 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Lamu Law Courts Criminal Case E143 of 2026 FM Mulama, RM July 30, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and James Kamau Accused Judgment A. Brief Facts. 1.In the book of Exodus 20:2-17 the Bible and indeed the 10 commandments decree that each of us should obey our parents so that we may live long. It is the only commandment that has a promise to it. The promise is to have long life. This is also repeated in the book of Ephesians 6:1-3. Both the new and the old testament insist on this and this speaks to its centrality to Christianity. 2.The accused herein is one of the fewest individuals I have come to know that he is not interested in living long on this earth as he decided not only to disobey her mother but also threaten her and insult her using some unpalatable words as shall be apparent in a short while. 3.This case gives a scenario of 2 extremes human beings can go. One is a mother who in the wake of insults, threats to her life and actual violence is calm and hopeful that things will change and on the other hand is a son gone rogue and in a frolic of his own. 4.Bahati alias mtoto wa mama’s 2013 breakout hit song “Mama” was majorly inspired by his early childhood experiences of losing his mother at a young age and thereafter facing the hardships of life as an orphan in an orphanage. He praises his mother for who he is and holds her in high regard even in her death. In the said song he sings partly that;Maana Kubwa Kwangu Mummy Ndio Nakuimbia Mama Zawadi Nono Kwangu Haki Kutoka Kwa Maulana Maana Kubwa Kwangu Mummy Ndio Nakuimbia Mama Zawadi Nono Kwangu Haki Kutoka Kwa Maulana Nipe tu dakika Keti Chini Nikuambie Nachukua hii fursa Mama Wacha Nikuimbie Nipe tu dakika Keti Chini Nikuambie Nachukua hii fursa Na Dunia Isikie Miezi Tisa Ndani Yako Kanibeba Uchovu Na Miaka Tisa Kando Yako Ukinitoa Uovu(Mama)Miezi Tisa Ndani Yako Kanibeba Uchovu Na Miaka Tisa Kando Yako Ukinitoa Uovu Maana Kubwa Kwangu Mummy Ndio Nakuimbia Mama Zawadi Nono Kwangu Haki Kutoka Kwa Maaulana Maana Kubwa Kwangu Mummy Ndio Nakuimbia Mama Zawadi Nono Kwangu Haki Kutoka Kwa Maaulana Uuu Utovu Wa Nidhamu Ndani Yangu Ukaupiga Na Ndoto Za Utotoni Ukanipa Motisha(Mama)Utovu Wa Nidhamu Ndani Yangu Ukaupiga Na Ndoto Za Utotoni Ukanipa Motisha Mwanangu Unaweza Lolote Ukijikaza utafika popote Mwana, Unaweza Lolote Maono Mengi Ulifanya Niote Mwanangu Unaweza Lolote Ukijikaza utafika popote Mwana Unaweza Lolote Maono Mengi Ulifanya Niote Maana Kubwa Kwangu Mummy Ndio Nakuimbia Mama 5.Pw 1 just like Bahati’s mother has tried to make the accused person herein a better person in society by taking him to school for studies but the accused due to reasons best known to him dropped out of school. The mother did not give up. She took him to a mechanic atleast to learn mechanics, the accused in return attacked the trainer and was chased out of the workshop/garage. He came back home but still the mother accepted him back despite his transgressions. 6.Seemingly he took advantage of this kindness and misused it to the extent that his mother described him in her testimony that he became like the man of the house who would come late in the night and order her to prepare food but being the mother she is she would oblige in my view not for fear of untold consequences but for the love a mother has to a child however rude and violent the child is. This is evident in the occurrences of the material date that even in the wake of insults and actual violence she stayed put until she could no longer have it any more that she rushed out screaming for help. 7.While Bahati mtoto was mama as he is famously known praises his mother for all the good things she did for him before she died, the accused herein is doing the exact but unfortunate opposite. He has said unpalatable words about her and he infact threatened to kill her and asked his siblings to mark the date. 8.However, unlike Bahati’s mother, Pw1 did not discipline the accused that is why he has the audacity to do some of the things he is accused of doing in this case. 9.The accused is charged 3counts. Malicious damage to property contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal code, threatening violence contrary to section 95(2)(a) of the Penal code and offensive conduct contrary to section 94(1) of the Penal code. 10.The facts in support were that the accused on the on the 17/5/2026 at around 8am at Matangeni area in Hindi Lamu county he maliciously damaged a mobie phone make Nokia C22 greyish in colour valued at Kshs.28,000/= the property of Velonica Wanjiku Kihunyu and while at it threatened her by saying “Hii machozi inatiririka ni damu na lazima ilipwe either mimi Kamau nizikwe ama wewe mama, unataka nichukue kisu nikudunge” and further shouted insults to her stating, “wewe mama huna maana na najuta kuzaliwa na mama kama wewe kubaf wewe, kuma ya mamako kazi yako ni kupanulia wanaume.” 11.2 witnesses testified on behalf of the state and the accused after being found to have a case to answer he gave sworn testimony and closed his case. I have considered the testimonies by both parties. The Prosecution’s Case. 12.It is the evidence of Pw 1 who is the complainant and the mother of the accused that on the material date and time she heard the accused ranting in his room but she was not bothered as much and she went to the kitchen to prepare breakfast. 13.While in the kitchen the accused came asked Pw1 -her mother which date it was and when she said she could not tell off head he called his siblings and told them to mark the date he then told her that he wanted her to cry and that she should not ask him any questions. He first picked her phone that was on the table and smashed it on the wall. She went and picked the phone. The accused snatched it from her hands and threw it on the floor and stepped on it. 14.The accused then started crying while saying that Pw 1 was not his mother and that the tears he was crying is akin to blood that the Pw 1 would have to pay for it and on seeing her life was in danger, she pleaded with the accused not to harm her. On seeing the accused was not moved, she threatened to curse him but the accused told her that he is used to curses and he is not moved. 15.Pw 1 then continued serving tea to the other siblings who sadly were seeing all that was happening. She served tea to the other children while keeping an eye on the accused out of fear. As she continued to serve tea she saw the accused scanning the kitchen as though looking for something and she was quick enough to suspect he was looking for a knife and true to her suspicion, the accused told her that he had seen the knife and there are only 2 options; either him or her dies. Pw 1 on hearing this ran to her room and was followed by the children. 16.The accused followed her to the room and told her that her day had reached and that she held her against the wall by the neck and told his siblings that her day had finally come. She pleaded with him not to injure her and she even knelt down while pleading for mercy. While kneeling down she managed once again to escape and he locked him inside the bedroom with the other children. 17.Determined to pursue his mission, he hit the ceiling board and accessed the roof and climbed up and walked to his room and jumped down and found Pw 1 in the sitting room and took the keys Pw 1 had used to lock him inside the room and kept them in his pocket and started insulting her by saying, “wewe mama huna maana na najuta kuzaliwa na mama kaka wewe kumbaf wewe, kuma ya mamako kazi yako ni kupanulia wanaume”. 18.Pw 1 continue to pleading with him even in the wake of insults and threats but the accused despite all this slapped her and insisted that she must die and on hearing this she screamed for help and she ran out. The accused chased after her but she managed to seek refuge in one of the neighbour’s houses and he came and told her not to leave that house and Pw 1 found a phone in that house and called for help and she was rescued by the neighbour and the matter was reported to the police. 19.It was her testimony that the accused has turned himself into a man in that house in that he even bet up her till he was hospitalized and that he comes home late in the night and orders Pw 1 to prepare food for him. Defence Case 20.The accused in his defence stated that on the material date he went to the kitchen where Pw 1 was and asked her about the whereabouts of his paternal relatives but according to him his mother told him not to mind about them as they are devil worshippers and belong to the freemasons and that they would sacrifice him. That she then took her phone towards him but he was lucky it missed him and hit the wall. She then told him that she was going to report him to the police and he accompanied her and upon arrival at the police station, he was arrested. B. Issue for Determination. 21.This court has identified the following issues for determination.a.Whether the accused maliciously damaged the complainant’s mobile phone.b.Whether the accused threatened the complainant with violence.c.Whether the charge of offensive conduct has been proved to the required standards. C. Analysis and Determination. 22.As stated in the opening paragraphs of this judgment and as captured in the testimony of Pw1, this case paints a sad picture of how low at times children can sink and this is a depiction of our society in this day and age. 23.Gone are days and I must add that they were good old days where respect to parent was paramount and non-negotiable and by parent in this case I mean any one older. Adults and who were older in terms of age were generally regarded as parents and would punish any misbehavior even if they were not biological parents. That cannot be said of this day and age and this case is a pure example of this. 24.The accused herein is the son of the complainant. The accused went berserk on the material date and is accused of these charges before him. 25.As to whether he maliciously damaged the complainant’s phone, it was the evidence of Pw 1 that on the material date the accused went to the kitchen where Pw 1 was preparing breakfast called his siblings and told them to make sure they remember the date and he turned to her and told her that he wanted her to cry but she should not ask him any questions. He then picked the phone make Nokia C22 that was on the kitchen and smashed it on the wall. 26.Pw 1went and picked the phone. The accused then seemingly not done with phone, grabbed it once again from her and threw it on the ground and stepped on it. 27.Justice Ngenye Macharia in Wilson Gathungu Chuchu vs. Republic [2018] eKLR held that the elements of the offence of malicious damage are proof of ownership of the property; proof that the property was destroyed or damaged; proof that the destruction or damage was occasioned by the accused; and proof that the destruction was willful and unlawful. 28.In Simon Kiama Ndiagui vs. Republic (2017) eKLR, Ngaah J. held that-‘In order to convict the court must be satisfied that, first, some property was destroyed; second, that a person destroyed the property; third that the destruction was willful and therefore there must be proof of intent; and fourth, the court must also be satisfied that the destruction was unlawful. 29.Taking cue from the above decisions and from the totality, there is no dispute that phone make Nokia C22 was destroyed. The phone was produced as Pw 1 and the court observed that the same had been damaged badly. The accused further did not dispute or challenge that damage. As to the person who destroyed the phone, Pw 1 stated that it was the accused who smashed it on the wall without any reason whatsoever. The accused in his defence, stated that infact it is Pw 1 who wanted to hit him with the phone and he was lucky it missed and hit the wall. 30.The accused when cross examining Pw 1 as to the occurrence of that day, he never mentioned or blame Pw1 for the damage. Infact the only clarity he sought from Pw 1 in cross examination was whether Pw 1 was his biological mother. When Pw 1 answered in the affirmative, he never asked any question. Therefore, the issues being raised in defence, are an afterthought and I thus from the onset dismiss the defence by the accused. There is overwhelming evidence that it is the accused who destroyed the phone. He was at the scene on the material date and in the kitchen as stated in his own defence. Therefore the court find that indeed it is the accused who destroyed the phone by first smashing it to the wall and thereafter stepping on it on the floor. 31.The destruction from the testimony of Pw 1 was willful. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition ‘wilful’ means:-“the word ‘wilful’ or ‘wilfully’ when used in the definition of a crime, it has been said time and again, means only intentionally or purposely as distinguished from accidentally or negligently and does not require any actual impropriety; while on the other hand it has been stated with equal repetition and insistence that the requirement added by such a word is not satisfied unless there is a bad purpose or evil intent.” 32.From the definition, the accused has all intents and purposes to have the phone completely destroyed because even after smashing the phone to the wall and Pw 1 picked it, he again snatched it from her and threw it on the ground and stepped on it so that any part that had been spared by the smash on the call would not survive the stepping on. This was willful and compete destruction of the said phone. A look at the phone would at the glance of the said phone conclude that the accused had only one goal to completely damage the phone and make it not usable. The damage was willful. 33.As to whether the destruction was unlawful, it goes without saying that the accused had no reason whatsoever lawful or otherwise to destroy the phone. He did not explain himself why he smashed the phone on the wall then stepped on it. It did not pose a risk to anyone and hence he had no reason whatsoever. The act of destruction was thus unlawful. From the aforegoing therefore, issue(a) is answered in the affirmative. 34.Whether the accused threatened the complainant with violence.? The overwhelming evidence show that the accused threatened to kill his own mother and even summoned his siblings and told them to mark the date as either of them would die that day. He said this after he spotted a knife in the kitchen. 35.On hearing this Pw 1 rushed to her bedroom. The accused followed her to the bedroom grabbed her against the wall and telling her that it was her last day. It will be remembered at this juncture in the proceedings, Pw 1 broke down and cried and the court gave her a few minutes to compose herself. The fear and the torture she went through that day was evident from the way she broke down in court. 36.She was convinced that indeed that was her last day and she had to kneel down and plead for mercy from the accused person who seemed not moved by anything and on seeing that the accused was so determined to accomplish his mission, she once again dashed out of the room and locked the room from outside. The accused in his element, broke the ceiling board and climbed the roof and climbed down through his room and went to the sitting room where he found PW 1 and the first thing was to pick the keys and put in his pocket in that Pw 1 had no where to rush to again. 37.This was like a horror movie in my view. In that however much Pw 1 tried to escape, the accused had a mysterious way of catching up with her and continue tormenting her both physically and emotionally. 38.From the testimony of Pw 1 after she successfully locked up the accused in her room, the accused broke the ceiling board and jumped out through his room to go to the sitting room where he found Pw 1. From the facts of this case which I have elaborated in this judgment, it is clear that the accused threatened Pw 1 her own mother with violence and in some instances with actual violence. By breaking the ceiling board of Pw 1’ room and his own room to climb down from the ceiling, the accused injured a dwelling house within the meaning of section 95(2)(a) of the Penal code and therefore issue (b) is similarly answered in the affirmative. 39.As to whether the charge of offensive conduct is proved, I do find that the unfortunate events occurred in a house where there was only the accused, the complainant and some children. For this offence to be proved, it must happen in a public place or a public gathering which is not the case herein. 40.Furthermore section 94(2) defines public gathering as a meeting of over 10 people. There is no evidence to show that this threshold in terms of numbers was met. The charge therefore falls on that ground alone. 41.I must however, observe that the words contained in the charge are most unfortunate to come from a son and directed to a mother or any other person. The words used are gross and unpalatable. D. Conclusion and Disposition. 42.Taking into account the evidence and the testimonies on record, I do find and hold that prosecution proved counts 1 and 2 beyond any reasonable doubt. 43.Consequently, the accused person is convicted in count 1 for maliciously damaging the phone make Nokia C22 contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal code and count 2 for threatening violence contrary to section 95(2)(a) of the penal code. He is convicted in those counts under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 44.The accused is however, acquitted in count 3 for the offence of offensive conduct contrary to section 94(1) of the Penal code under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 45.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT LAMU LAW COURTS THIS..30TH …DAY OF …JULY…2026F.M. MULAMARESIDENT MAGISTRATEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: AbuswalehIdris Tomno for DPP.James Kamau.