https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8968

Republic v Muhu (Criminal Case 59 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8968 (KLR) (Crim) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8968 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Criminal Criminal Case 59 of 2023 KW Kiarie, J June 25, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and John Kahuha Muhu Accused Judgment 1.John Kahuha Muhu is charged with murder contrary to section 203, as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on the 15th day of May 2022, at Kenton village, Kinangop sub-county, within Nyandarua County, he murdered Stephen Njehia Mwaura. 3.The Incident that led to the death of Stephen Njehia Mwaura happened at night. The prosecution contended that the accused caused the death of the deceased. 4.John Kahuha Muhu, the accused, argued that the deceased attacked him while armed with a machete. The two struggled over the machete, and the deceased was fatally injured. 5.The issues to be decided are:a)whether the accused acted in self-defence,b)whether the deceased was the aggressor, andc)whether the murder charge against the accused was proven. 6.Daniel Kariuki Njoroge (PW1) testified that around 9 p.m. on May 15, 2022, he was watching television. He heard a quarrel on the road approximately 20 meters from his home and recognized the accused's voice. When he stepped outside, he heard someone calling for help. On his way to the scene, he encountered the accused, who struck him on the leg with what seemed to be a metallic object. Recognizing the accused, he held him back. He then raised an alarm, prompting David Chege to appear first. After releasing the accused, Daniel ran toward the noise and found the deceased with a head injury. He mentioned that the night was very dark. 7.David Chege Njihia (PW2) stated that noises drew him to the scene. When he stepped outside, he heard PW1 calling for help. He saw the accused and PW1 struggling, and together they subdued the accused. PW1 then went to check on the person lying nearby. He shouted that the deceased was injured. This witness also mentioned that the night was not dark because there was moonlight. 8.John Kahuha Muhu, the accused, claims he left the local shopping centre around 8 p.m. When passing near the deceased's land, he noticed a motorcycle parked with its headlight on. While bending down to tie his shoelaces using the motorcycle’s light, he was suddenly struck from behind. Upon turning to see who hit him, he was cut on the forehead and right leg. A struggle broke out between them. When the man he was fighting with tried to cut him again, he kicked him, causing the machete to fall. He quickly picked up the machete and waved it to defend himself. When the man let go, he threw the machete aside and started walking home. Along the way, he was confronted by PW1, who knocked him down, and PW2, who joined and used an iron bar to break his legs. 9.John Gichu Kirima (DW2), a village elder, testified that the machete presented in court as the murder weapon belonged to the deceased. He also confirmed that the deceased had blocked the public road. 10.From the analysis of the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has proved that the accused inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased. 11.The accused's defence amounted to a plea of self-defence. Section 17 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, provides that:Subject to any express provisions in this Code or any other law in operation in Kenya, criminal responsibility for the use of force in the defence of person or property shall be determined according to the principles of English Common Law. 12.The Court of Appeal in the case of Ahmed Mohammed Omar & 5 others v Republic [2014] eKLR agreed with the principles on the issue as laid down by the Privy Council in PALMER v R [1971] A.C. 814. The decision was approved and followed by the Court of Appeal in R v McINNES, 55 Cr. App. R. 551. Lord Morris, delivering the judgment of the Board, said:It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and common sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. …Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack, it would not be common sense to permit some act of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril, then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in immediate danger, he may have to avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is over and no sort of peril remains, then the employment of force may be way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may be no longer any link with a necessity of defence. ….. The defence of self-defence either succeeds so as to result in an acquittal, or it is disproved, in which case, as a defence, it is rejected. In a homicide case, the circumstances may be such that it will become an issue as to whether there was provocation so that the verdict might be one of manslaughter. Any other possible issues will remain. If, in any case, the view is possible that the intent necessary to constitute the crime of murder was lacking, then the matter would be left to the jury. 13.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). 14.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. 15.Dr Titus Ngulungu performed a post-mortem on the body of the deceased. The body had six slash wounds on the vertex, left parietal region, right side of the mouth, anterior neck, anterior chest and right shoulder. He formed the opinion that the deceased died from massive blood loss following severed neck vessels due to multiple sharp trauma to the head, neck and chest. 16.Although the deceased was the aggressor, the accused applied excessive force given the circumstances of this case. 17.Based on the review of the available evidence, I determine that the prosecution has failed to prove the murder charge against the accused. Therefore, I acquit him of that offence. Nonetheless, I find that the offence of manslaughter under section 205 of the Penal Code has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore find him guilty and convict him accordingly. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE