https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8941

Republic v Kivati (Criminal Case E008 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8941 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8941 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Vihiga Criminal Case E008 of 2024 JN Kamau, J June 23, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and James Kivati Accused Judgment Introduction 1.The Accused person herein was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 (Laws of Kenya). The particulars of the Charge were that:-“On 28th April 2024 at Simboi bridge in Maragoli North Sabatia Sub-County in Vihiga County murdered Sheila Jaruha” 2.The Prosecution’s case was heard on diverse dates between 13th May 2025 and 11th June 2025 when it closed its case. On 16th July 2025, this court found that the Prosecution had established a prima facie case against the Accused person and thereby put him on his defence. The defence case was heard on 18th December 2025. 3.The Prosecution’s Written Submissions were dated 5th January 2026 and filed on 2nd February 2026 while those of the Accused person were dated and filed on 1st March 2026. The Judgment herein is based on the said Written Submissions which the parties relied upon in their entirety. Legal Analysis 4.The issues that were put before this court for consideration were as follows:-a.Whether or not “Sheila Jaruha” (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) died?b.If so, was her death caused by an unlawful action(s) and/or omissions?c.If so, who caused the unlawful action(s) and/or omissions?d.Was there malice aforethought in the causation of the deceased’s death? 5.This court therefore found it prudent to deal with the said issues under the following distinct and separate headings. I. Proof Of Death Of The Deceased 6.Both the Accused person and the Prosecution submitted that there was no dispute as to whether the deceased died. 7.As both the Prosecution and Defence witnesses alluded to her death, it was not necessary to seek further proof. This court found and held that the deceased’s death was proved without an iota of doubt. II. Proof Of Cause Of The Deceased’s Death 8.The cause of the deceased’s death was a pertinent issue. The Accused person did not submit on the question of proof of the deceased’s death. On its part, the Prosecution submitted that the deceased’s death was proved by the Post-mortem Report. 9.Dr Dixon Mchana (hereinafter referred to as “PW 3”) tendered a Post-mortem Report dated 6th May 2024 in respect of the deceased herein as an exhibit in this matter. He testified that after conducting the post-mortem examination, he formed an opinion that the cause of the deceased’s death was asphyxiation secondary to strangulation. 10.It was therefore clear from his evidence that the deceased’s death was not as a result of natural causes. It was, therefore, crucial to establish how the deceased sustained the injuries that caused her death. III. Identification Of Perpetrator Of Deceased’s Death 11.The Accused person denied having murdered the deceased. He submitted that there was no direct evidence and no witnesses who linked him to having caused her death. He stated that he was not at the scene and the evidence of Duncan Imbuza Keiza (hereinafter referred to as “PW 2”), who claimed that he was the person to have been seen with the deceased was not corroborated. He averred that there was no evidence of the tool that was used or that he used the said tool to commit the offence. 12.He submitted that the Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, but that for such evidence to suffice, it had to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused person and incapable of any other rational explanation or reasonable hypothesis than that of an accused person’s guilt as was held in Sawe vs Republic (2003) KLR. 13.He also relied on the case of Mohammed & 3 Others vs Republic (2005) 1KLR 722 where the court therein held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved and the case of Republic vs Kipkering arap Koske & Another (1949) 16 EACA 135 where it was held that circumstantial evidence had to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of an accused person. 14.On its part, the Prosecution submitted that although no one saw the Accused person strangle the deceased, he was the one who was last seen with her. It invoked the doctrine of last seen which stated that the last person who was seen with the deceased would have been presumed to have killed him or her unless evidence to the contrary was adduced. It placed reliance on the case of Kimani vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 41 of 2022) [2023] KECA 1390 (KLR) where the court stated that the doctrine of last seen was based on circumstantial evidence that the person last seen with the deceased before their death was responsible for his or her death and the accused was expected to explain to what happened. 15.It stated that Aggrey Kiranya (hereinafter referred to as “PW 4”) testified that he saw the Accused person with the deceased at midnight on 28th April 2024 and on following day, her items were found at River Simboi. It also pointed out that the Accused person confessed to having strangled and dumped the deceased’s body in the said River, and it was this confession that led to her discovery. It averred that the said confession that he had strangled her was consistent with PW 3’s evidence.1.It was emphatic that the circumstantial evidence pointed to the Accused person as having been the person who assaulted the deceased as the chain of events was cumulative. In this regard, it relied on Abanga alias Onyango vs Republic Cr App No 32 of 1990 and Sawe vs Republic (Supra) where the common thread was that where a case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances had to be cogent, the facts had to unerringly point towards the guilt of an accused person, and that the circumstances taken together formed a complete chain to point to the accused person as the perpetrator of the offence. 16.The Accused person testified that on the material date of 28th April 2024, he went home after attending Church and started weeding maize. He said that in the evening, he bathed and slept. He told this court that in the morning, he continued with his work until 2.00 pm when he went to his place of work and was given four (4) squads (sic). He stated that he ferried passengers and at about 5.00 pm, he went home and gave his wife food to cook. 17.His further evidence was that the following day, he was to take his mother for Clinic (sic), but since his motorbike was spoilt, he told her that he would borrow one. He averred that when he got to the stage, he was informed by the Chairman that Idalia and PW 2 had been arrested. 18.He testified that he was contacted by an Officer from Mudete, who when he arrived, told him that he had ferried a lady at night. He said that he denied the same since his Motor bike had broken down and if one got a squad, he had to return the motor bike to the owner by 5. 00 pm. 19.His evidence was that when he got to the Station, he found a motor vehicle and a motor bike which had been impounded. He stated that a report was made that a body had been found and he was questioned by the DCI but he denied. He further stated that they were taken to the cells and after three days, the DCI took him. He asserted that he was tortured, injured and forced to admit something he did not know. 20.He denied having murdered the deceased and was emphatic that there was nothing that showed that he had killed her. He also denied having been in the club on 29th April 2024 to meet her or confessing that he killed her. He said that he did not know the confession that was brought to court. He pointed out that he did not know what was written down since he had not eaten, he was not okay and that he was stressed since his mother was at home alone with no one to take care of her. He said that he was informed that the motor bike and the motor vehicle were sold. 21.On cross-examination, he denied knowing the deceased and asserted that it was the DCIO who told him to accept whatever they told him. He said that he still denied the charges that he was facing. 22.Arthurlee Mudembey (hereinafter referred to as “PW1”) was the deceased’s father. He testified that on the material day of 28th April 2024, he was at home with the deceased when his nephew, Humphrey Idalia, who was staying in the same compound, passed by and started talking to the deceased. He stated that when he inquired what they were talking about, the said Humphrey informed him that he was going to show the deceased a similar job like the one she was doing abroad. He said that they then left and he waited for them until night time. 23.He told this court that the following day on 29th April 2024, her daughter-in-law, Jackline Munyasia, informed her that her children had told her that when they were going to school, they saw their aunty Sheila’s bandana, wig and phone near Simboi River. He said that he called the deceased, but she did not pick her phone. He further stated that the following day on 30th April 2024, he asked the said Humphrey of the deceased’s whereabouts since they left together and he told him that he would enquire from the people he left her with. 24.He averred that the said Humphrey sent a boda boda that took him to the home of one Ezekiel Kisha where he found the Accused person and PW 2. He told this court that the said Humphrey was guarding them and there was a mob that wanted to lynch the Accused person. He contended that they took the Accused person and PW 2 to the Police Station and were informed that the Accused person admitted that he took the deceased from Simboi and threw her in Wakikuyu River. 25.He stated that they searched for the deceased’s body but they did not recover it. He then asked one Okoa to try and recover her body. He added that on 3rd May 2025 (sic), Okoa informed her that her body had been recovered. He said that he knew the Accused person who was a boda boda rider. 26.When he was cross-examined, he said that he would not have known if the deceased went to PW 4’s house instead of where she was supposed to go. He also contended that he did not know what state the Accused person was in when he told the police where the deceased was. He said that the deceased and the Accused person had no relationship because she had just come from Egypt and had not met him prior. 27.PW 2 told the court that he was a teacher and on that the material day of 28th April 2024, he went to the house of PW 4, who was his cousin, to have a drink. He said that he stayed there till about 5.00 pm when his friend, the said Humphrey Idalia, walked in accompanied by a lady whom he came to learn was the deceased. 28.He said that they took chang’aa together and since he liked the deceased, at around 7.00pm, he told the said Humphrey that it was good to take the deceased to see his home. He said that PW 4’s neighbour accompanied them and he showed them his house and compound. He averred that they returned to PW 4’s place at around 8.00 pm where he told the said Humphrey that he wanted to know the deceased more, and so, the said Humphrey left. 29.He stated that at 9.00 pm, they left PW 4’s compound and the deceased informed him that she wanted to have more fun whereupon they went to Hashtag club where they ordered for a jug of keg. He stated that the deceased kept going in and out talking to other people, but that when he went outside and discovered that she was talking to the Accused person, he was not worried since he knew him. 30.He said that the left the club at around 11.00 pm and hired the Accused person to take them home. He stated that the Accused person used to ride a Motor Cycle called Knightbird Registration No KMF 1806B (hereinafter referred to as “the subject Motor Cycle.” He said that he got to his home and paid the Accused person Kshs 300/= and asked him to ensure that the deceased got home. He averred that he slept and that in the morning, he visited PW 4 who informed him that the Accused person and the deceased went back to his place and the Accused person ordered for chang’aa of Kshs 50/=. He said that that PW 4 also informed him that it was like the deceased was raped because there were screams. 31.He contended that he went to Simboi River and he recognised the deceased’s wig, which she had won the previous day. He said that he went to look for the Accused person, but because he could not find him, he decided to go to PW 4’s place where together with one Ken, the said Humphrey and PW 4 hatched a plan on how to get him the Accused person. He stated that the said Ken called the Accused person to pick a parcel and when he arrived, they apprehended him and started questioning him and he said that he took the deceased home. 32.He testified that he and the Accused person were handcuffed. He stated that the Accused person told the crowd that his boda boda had an accident and the deceased died and that he helped him throw her in the water. He said that the crowd started beating them and they were later taken to police station where he was released after interrogation. He said that he knew the Accused person and identified his Motor Cycle. 33.When he was cross- examined, he agreed that he was last seen with the deceased and that he did not see the Accused person kill her. He told the court that there was a security guard called Juba who said that he saw the Accused person and the deceased and he was not there. He stated that Juba had a torch which helped him see the Accused person and the deceased. He further testified that the deceased never contacted him after they parted ways and that the next day, he sought to know whether she had arrived safely but he did not get her. 34.PW 4 told the court that he came to know the deceased after the incident, but that he knew the Accused person who was a boda boda rider. He testified that on the material day, they were having a drink with his cousin, PW 2, when a friend, Humphrey Idalia, who was accompanied by a lady, whom he came to know as the deceased, joined them. He stated that at around 3.00 pm, PW 2, the said Humphrey, the deceased and another old man went to see PW 2’s house and returned to his home shortly. He said that the said Humphrey and the old man left while PW 2 and the deceased remained at his home until around 7.30 pm when they left his house. 35.He testified that at about 10. 00pm, the said Humphrey went to his place with a car looking for the deceased. He averred that he also informed him that people at home were asking him where she was since he left with her. He told him that PW 2 and the deceased were adults. 36.He said that when Humphrey left, he went to sleep, but that at around 12.00 midnight, he heard a Motor Cycle and someone call him by his nickname. He stated that he opened the window and saw it was the Accused person and the deceased. He averred that the Accused person ordered for a drink which he packed in a bottle and gave them whereafter, they left after paying him Kshs 50/=. He asserted that he was able to see them through the moonlight and he also had a spot light on. 37.He told the court that the following morning, a watchman guarding a coffee factory informed him that he heard screams near the bridge the previous night. He said that the workers in a car wash also informed him that they had seen a wig and a bandana and he told them not to touch them. 38.He added that on 30th April 2024, the said Humphrey went to his place and told him that the deceased could not be found. He said that he told him that the last person he saw the deceased with, was the Accused person. He explained how he, PW 2 and other friends tricked the Accused person that there was a job and that when he arrived, he tried to flee, but was apprehended. 39.He testified that the Accused person told them that he took the deceased to Hassan’s place, but that when Hassan was interrogated, he admitted that although he was with the deceased at the bar, he did not go with her, which the Accused person conceded was true, but that she left with PW 2. He said that he then handcuffed both the Accused person and PW 2 and took them to the Police Station. 40.When he was cross-examined, he said that Hassan and PW 2 were drinking together at Hashtag bar and that although he saw the Accused person and the deceased leave together, he did not see him kill the deceased. 41.No 241207 Inspector Collins Otieno (hereinafter referred to as “PW 5”) told this court that he was the Deputy DCIO Webuye Sub-County and formerly Deputy DCIO Sabatia. He stated that he recorded the Accused person’s Confession Statement dated 3rd May 2024 after being instructed to do so by DCIO Catherine Gakuru. He stated that while seated in his office, the Accused person expressed regret that the deceased died in his hands. He said that he asked him if he wanted to record a confession and he responded in the affirmative. 42.He averred that he read to him the rules of confessions and he chose to give his confession in Kiswahili, which was translated in English, in the presence of his wife, Purity, who was within the Station. He said that the said Purity was called to his office and was informed of the purpose of her being called. 43.He testified that the Accused person told him that on the night of 28th and 29th April 2024, he ferried the deceased and a Mwalimu, a witness in this case. He said that after he and the deceased dropped Mwalimu at his home, they passed by a home of another witness where they bought Chang’aa worth Kshs 50/=. The Accused person told him that after a few metres, he and the deceased had a slight disagreement and he found himself holding her neck with both hands and when he disengaged, she fell down. He said that he added that after few minutes, he realised that she was motionless. 44.He further testified that the Accused person informed him that he carried her on his Motor bike and that he supported her on his back with a jacket until Kikuyu River where he threw her in the water. He said that the Accused told him that he went back to the Stage where he used to work and since it was almost morning, he continued with his work. He said that he read out the Confession to him in the presence of his wife. He produced the said Confession and Certificate as an exhibit in this case. 45.When he was cross-examined, he admitted that a confession statement could not be recoded if an accused person refused to record the same. He confirmed that he was the one who wrote the Confession Statement in the standard form and signed it. He stated that he explained to the Accused person the provision of Section 25A of the Evidence Act. 46.He contended that that the Accused person was well fed at the time of recording the Confession and also when he was in the cell, a fact that was also indicated in the Occurrence Book. He told this court that although he could not determine his mental status from his physical appearance, the Accused person was not in a bad condition, and so, they did not take him to see a doctor before recording the confession. It was his further evidence that the Accused person confirmed that he was okay. 47.He said that the Accused person was not given the typed copy of the confession to sign. He also stated that he never signed the typed copy of the confession since he had left the station. He averred that he produced the duly singed original Confession Statement and not the copy. 48.He confirmed that it was indicated in the Confession Statement that the Accused person choose his wife to be a witness and that they both signed the original Confession Statement. He stated that the Accused person was arrested on 29th April 2024 and made the confession on 3rd May 2024. 49.No 112178 PC Simon Gitau (hereinafter referred to as “PW 6”) was the Investigating Officer. He testified that he was informed by DCIO Catherine Gakuru that two (2) suspects who had been arrested by members of public for having been last seen with the deceased, a fact that the OCS Mudete Police Station confirmed, were at Mudete Police Station. He said that while at the Station, another suspect by the name Humphrey Idalia was also arrested. His reiterated PW 1’s, PW 2’s, PW 4’s and PW 5’s testimony and averred that the Accused person reported to him what was written in the Confession Statement. 50.He told the court that on 1st May 2024, the Accused person agreed to take them to the bridge of River Kikuyu where he dumped the body but they did not find the body. He said that he also took them to River Simboi where he had said he strangled the deceased. He stated that they found a wig which was tied to a bandana and was positively identified as belonging to the deceased as she was wearing them on 28th April 2024. 51.His further testimony was that on 2nd May 2024, the Accused person requested for a confession and he informed Catherine Gakuru who appointed PW 5 who to take the confession. He said that the following day, 3rd May 2024, they received information that a body had been seen at the river bank of River Kikuyu, which PW 1, identified as having been that of the deceased. 52.He said that a post-mortem was done and it was established that the deceased died due to strangulation which aligned with what the Accused person had confessed, that he found himself bolding the deceased’s neck with both hands, whereupon they charged him with the offence of murder. He produced the wig, bandana and the subject Motor Cycle as exhibits in this matter. 53.On being cross- examined, he stated that he did not know why the Accused person decided to confess. He said that he was not present when the confession was being made and that the Accused person seemed okay and composed before giving his confession. He said that although he did not confirm what the Accused person had taken on the evening of 2nd May 2025 and morning of 3rd May 2025, he had eaten. He stated that he never got the telephone numbers of the Accused person and the deceased to establish whether their phones were in proximity at River Simboi. 54.Notably, the Prosecution’s case was based on the confession that was recorded by PW 5. The law governing taking of confessions is provided under Section 25A(1) of the Evidence Act which provides that:-“A confession or any admission of a fact tending to the proof of guilt made by an accused person is not admissible and shall not be proved as against such person unless it is made in court before a judge, a magistrate or before a police officer (other than the investigating officer), being an officer not below the rank of Chief Inspector of Police, and a third party of the person’s choice.” 55.The Rules of Confession of 2009 also buttressed this provision and further stipulated that a confession had to be recorded in writing, that the accused person was to be given an opportunity to clarify the content of the said confession, and it had to contain a certificate at the end as was enunciated by the Court of Appeal in John Kipsesat Chepyator vs Republic [2019] KECA 268 (KLR). 56.Section 26 of the Evidence Act also states that a confession must be extracted voluntarily without any threat, duress, torture, promise or influence of any kind. Section 26 of the Evidence Act states as follows:-“A confession or any admission of a fact tending to the proof of guilt made by an accused person is not admissible in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession or admission appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.” 57.Besides, Article 49(1)(d) of the Constitution provides that nobody is to be compelled to make a confession nor admission. Its states that:-“An arrested person has the right not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against the person.” 58.A perusal of the Confession Statement and the Certificate that PW 5 produced showed that the Confessions Rules were read to the Accused person. He indicated his preferred language was Kiswahili and that he had not been subjected to any form of coercion, duress, threat or torture. It was also stated that he was not deprived of food, that he was given some minutes for rest and that he elected Purity Kamwonya, as his witness. PW 5 was the Recording Officer, not the Investigating Officer, and that he was an Inspector of Police. 59.From the foregoing, it was clear that the rules for recording a confession were followed in accordance with Section 25A of the Evidence Act. However, the Accused person repudiated his confession in his defence. He denied committing the offence and denied even knowing the deceased herein. This court had due regard to the case of Wambunya vs Republic [1993] KLR 133 stated that a trial court should accept any confession, which had been repudiated or retracted with caution and had to before founding a conviction on such a confession, be satisfied in all the circumstances of the case that the confession was true. 60.The Accused person raised a defence of alibi to exonerate himself from the accusation that he was the last person to be seen with the deceased. In ascertaining whether the said alibi had value, this court had due regard to the definition of “alibi” in the Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition. It was defined as:-“A defence based on the physical impossibility of a defendant’s guilt by placing the defendant in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time”. 61.It was also trite law that once a respondent raised an alibi defence, the onus shifted to the prosecution to displace the same as was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Victor Mwendwa Mulinge vs Republic [2014] eKLR. 62.In this case, the defence of alibi was raised at the defence hearing and not at the beginning of the trial. The Prosecution did not rebut the same despite having the option of doing so as provided in Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 (Laws of Kenya) that provides that:-“If the accused person adduces evidence in his defence introducing new matter which the advocate for the prosecution could not by the exercise of reasonable diligence have foreseen, the court may allow the advocate for the prosecution to adduce evidence in reply to rebut it.” 63.After carefully analysing the evidence that was adduced by the Prosecution witnesses, it was evident that although there was no eye witness in this particular case, evidence established that the Accused person was linked to the murder of the deceased. 64.This could not have been a case of mistaken identity. The Accused person’s assertion that the Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence which was not cogent was rendered moot as the circumstances relied on by the Prosecution were incapable of any explanation other than the guilt on his part. 65.PW 2 was categorical that after they left the club with the deceased, the Accused person dropped him at his place and instructed the Accused person to ensure that the deceased got home safely. On his part, PW 4 confirmed having seen the Accused person and the deceased with the help of moonlight when they went to his place to buy chang’aa and that they together. Notably, the deceased person was not seen again and only her body was recovered from a river on 3rd May 2025. 66.Further, this court noted that PW 6 testified that the Accused person took them to two (2) scenes, one in River Simboi where he stated that he strangled the deceased and indeed the deceased’s wig and bandana were recovered there and to River Kikuyu where he said he threw the body and indeed the body was recovered there. 67.In addition, the Accused person’s confession that he found both his hands at the deceased’s neck were consistent with PW 3’s opinion that the cause of the deceased’s death was asphyxiation secondary to strangulation. 68.The doctrine of the last seen proposed that where the deceased was last seen with the accused, there was a duty placed on an accused person to give an explanation relating to how the deceased met his or her death. In the absence of any explanation, the court was justified in drawing the inference that the accused killed the deceased. This was well enunciated in the case of Moses Jua vs The State (2007) LPELR-CA/IL/42/2006. 69.Weighed against the evidence that was adduced by the Prosecution witnesses, this court did not find his alibi evidence to have been watertight enough to have weakened the inference of guilt on his part. His defence did not displace and/or dislodge the consistent and cogent evidence that was adduced by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6. 70.This court was, therefore, persuaded to find and hold that the Prosecution proved its case to the required standard, which in criminal cases, was proof beyond reasonable doubt, that indeed, the Accused person was responsible for the death of the deceased. IV. Malice Aforethought 71.Having found and held that the Accused person’s defence was not sustainable as he was positively identified as the perpetrator of the deceased’s death, the next pertinent question that arose was whether or not he had malice aforethought in causing her death. 72.The accused person did not submit on this issue. On its part, the Prosecution invoked Section 206 of the Penal Code and cited the case of Republic vs Tubere s/o Ochen[1945] 12 EACA 63 where the East Africa Court of Appeal held that malice aforethought could be presumed by considering the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted and the manner in which the weapon was used. 73.The seriousness of the injuries the deceased sustained was confirmed by PW 3. He observed that the deceased was strangled which led to her death. The fact that the Accused person threw the deceased’s body in a river to conceal his crime and later went back to the place he used to conduct his business not be said to have been bereft of malice aforethought on the part of the Accused person. It was evil of him to have carried on as if nothing had happened. This was beastly and indicative of the value that he put on the deceased. A person who was entrusted to take her home safely, bought her more alcohol and turned against her ending her life yet there was no evidence of previous disagreements. 74.Having analysed the evidence that was adduced by both the Prosecution and the Accused person and their respective Written Submissions, this court came to the firm conclusion that the Prosecution established to the required standard, which in criminal cases, was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the act of unlawful killing of the deceased person herein was by the Accused person herein and that the same was with malice aforethought. 75.This court was persuaded to find and hold that the Prosecution had demonstrated the ingredients that had been set out in Section 203 of the Penal Code being:-a.Proof of the deceased’s death;b.Proof that the deceased’s death was a result of unlawful actions and/or omissions; andc.Proof of malice aforethought in the unlawful actions and/or omissions. Disposition 76.For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Accused person herein be and is hereby convicted of the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 (Laws of Kenya) under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 (Laws of Kenya). 77.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT VIHIGA THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026J. KAMAUJUDGE