https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11351

Republic v Obado & 2 others (Criminal Case 46 of 2018) [2026] KEHC 11351 (KLR) (Crim) (23 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11351 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Criminal Criminal Case 46 of 2018 CW Githua, J July 23, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Zacharia Okoth Obado 1st Accused Michael Juma Oyamo 2nd Accused Caspal Ojwang Obiero 3rd Accused Judgment The Information and Background. 1.The three accused persons, Zacharia Okoth Obado; Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero (hereinafter referred to as the 1st , 2nd and 3rd accused respectively) are charged in two counts with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code, Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya. 2.The particulars in the first count are that between 3rd and 4th September 2018 at Owade area, Rachuonyo Sub-County within Homa Bay County, the accused persons, jointly with others not before the court, murdered Sharon Belyne Otieno (hereinafter Sharon or the deceased). 3.In the second count, it is alleged that between 3rd and 4th September 2018 at Owade area, Rachuonyo Sub-County within Homa Bay County, the accused persons, jointly with others not before the court, murdered Baby Sharon. 4.The court record shows that the accused persons took plea on 8th October 2018 before Hon. Lady Justice Jessie Lesiit JA and they denied the charges in both counts. The case thereafter proceeded to full trial. 5.It is important to note, at the outset, that the trial in this case has taken a long time to conclude due to several intervening factors. Those factors include the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resultant disruptions to court processes. 6.The trial was also punctuated by several pre- trial issues and many interlocutory applications starting with the applications relating to admission of the accused persons to bond pending trial and other applications which were handled by the second trial judge, Hon. Lady Justice Ngenye - Macharia JA which were not concluded until 27th February 2020. I took over hearing of the case on 5th July 2021 and in the course of the trial, a significant amount of time was taken in the determination of interlocutory applications. It is noteworthy that in the course of the trial, I heard and determined a record sixteen interlocutory applications. 7.Another reason which contributed to delay in the conclusion of this case was transfer of the trial judge in September 2022 after hearing a total of 25 witnesses. Hearing of the case thereafter stalled and resumed about an year later on 17th July 2023 after the Hon. Chief Justice directed that I should continue trying the case to conclusion. Counsels in the Case. 8.Before proceeding further, I think it is necessary to mention the legal team that represented the parties during the trial. When the trial started, the lead prosecution counsel was learned counsel Ms. Catherine Mwaniki assisted by learned counsel Ms. Gikui Gichuhi and learned counsel Ms. Betsy Gikonyo. In the course of the trial, Ms. Gikui Gichuhi took over the role of lead prosecution counsel assisted by learned counsel Ms. Betsy Gikonyo and Mr. Allan Mulama. 9.On the defence side, the first accused was represented by Learned counsel Mr. Kioko Kilukumi SC assisted by Mr. Rodgers Sagana and learned counsel Ms. Mwanzia. The second accused was represented by Prof. Tom Ojienda SC assisted by learned counsel Mr. Oganda Messo and learned counsel Ms. Catherine Msando . The third accused was represented by Learned counsel Mr. Elisha Ongoya and learned counsel Mr. Jack Oronga but learned counsel Mr. Ongoya dropped from the case in the course of the trial leaving Mr. Oronga to continue representation of the 3rd accused. Lastly, the victims family was represented by learned counsel Mr. Daniel Njoroge and Learned counsel Mr. Hezekial Awour. The Prosecution Case. 10.In support of its case, the prosecution called forty two (42) witnesses and produced a total of 81 exhibits. 11.The prosecution case is that the 1st accused was at the material time the Governor of Migori County and he was in an intimate sexual relationship with the deceased, then a second year university student pursuing a diploma in medical health at the Rongo University. The 2nd accused was his Personal Assistant while the 3rd accused was a clerical officer employed by the County Government of Migori. 12.The deceased’s mother, Ms. Melinda Auma Rangili (PW30) testified that in the year 2017, she was living with sharon and her three children in her home. In February or March 2017, she realized that Sharon was pregnant and she seemed unhappy. Upon inquiry, Sharon confided in her that the 1st accused was responsible for her pregnancy and that he had become evasive as he was not picking her calls and had also withdrawn his financial support. 13.PW30 further recalled that between March and May 2017, Sharon told her that she had met the 1st accused in Nairobi and he had told her that he was not ready for the pregnancy and she should terminate it. He gave her Kshs. 30,000 to terminate the pregnancy and directed her to deal with the 2nd accused for matters related to the pregnancy. It was PW30’s testimony that upon her advice, Sharon decided to keep the pregnancy. 14.According to the evidence of Mr. Lawrence Obonyo Owour (PW28) who was also referred to as Mr. Mulla, on 20th July 2018, he was in one of the hotels in Homa Bay Town when Sharon approached him seeking his financial assistance. He promised to give her what he could on the following day. On the following day, they met in the same hotel. He gave Sharon Kshs. 1,500 and as they were having tea, she requested him to recommend a journalist who could assist by publishing her plight in the media to force the 1st accused to give her the attention she felt she deserved. 15.On 25th July 2018, PW28 organized a meeting between Sharon and a journalist at Tourist Hotel in Homa Bay. The journalist, PW9, testified as a protected witness under the pseudonym of XYZ. According to PW9, Sharon narrated to him her personal details and confided that she was in an intimate relationship with the 1st accused who had abandoned her after impregnating her; that she was at the time seven months pregnant and as she was facing financial hardships, she wanted his assistance by having her story published in the newspapers to force the Governor (1st accused) to reach out to her. 16.PW9 further recalled that he took photographs of the deceased and screen shots of WhatsApp communication between her and the 1st accused. Sharon also played two audio recordings of conversations between her and the 1st accused. In first recording, the 1st accused was pleading with her to stop posting her images on social media especially Facebook particularly photos of hotels they frequented while in the second recording, the 1st accused was beseeching her to procure an abortion stating that time was running out. They parted company with PW9 requesting Sharon to give him time to look for the 1st accused to get his side of the story. 17.After a few days, PW9 communicated to the 1st accused through a mutual friend that he wanted to talk to him about his relationship with Sharon. This prompted the 1st accused to call him and in the course of their conversation, the 1st accused invited him together with PW28 to visit him in his home at Rapogi. They both accepted the invitation and went to the 1st accused’s home the same evening. After sharing a meal, they had a meeting in which the issue of Sharon was discussed. 18.During the meeting, the 1st accused admitted knowledge of sharon’s pregnancy but complained that her expectations of him as narrated by PW9 were unrealistic as she was demanding for provision of a good car, a house in Nairobi and a good job. 19.PW9 further testified that when communicating Sharon’s demands, he had shared with the 1st accused that he had Sharon’s instructions to publish their illicit love affair in the media if her demands were not me. In his response, the 1st accused requested PW28 to contain the situation by talking to Sharon and identifying her needs. He also advised that any future communication relating to Sharon’s pregnancy should be channeled through the 2nd accused. 20.According to PW9, at the end of the visit and as the 1st accused was bidding them goodbye, the 1st accused instructed him not to tell anybody about Sharon’s pregnancy. The 2nd accused also called him a few days later and notified him that sharon’s matter would be resolved amicably. 21.About a week after the Rapogi meeting, PW28 met the 1st accused alone at the Serena Hotel and later at Heron Hotel in Nairobi. He shared with the 1st accused information received from Sharon that she required between Kshs. 20,000,000 to Kshs. 25,000,000 to buy a house in Nairobi or Kisumu; a good car and money for her upkeep. The 1st accused made a counter proposal offering to buy a plot at Homa Bay on which he would construct for her a three bedroomed house. 22.PW28 recalled that he subsequently talked to Sharon and she accepted the 1st accused’s counter proposal; that when he communicated to the 1st accused Sharon’s acceptance of his proposal, the 1st accused promised to avail the money needed for purchase of the plot and construction of the house by end of August 2018. 23.According to the further evidence of PW9, on 23rd August 2018, he received a call from Sharon informing him that the 1st accused, through the 2nd accused, had requested to meet them in Nairobi urgently; that he called the 2nd accused who confirmed the information and added that the 1st accused would meet their transportation costs. On the night of 23rd and 24th August 2018 at around 3 am, he received Kshs. 22,000 through Mpesa from a lady identified as Veronica Wangechi (PW4). 24.On her part, PW4 testified that she was on duty as a receptionist at Sagret Hotel, Nairobi when on 23rd August 2018, a man she was unable to identify requested her to send through her Safaricom line Kshs. 22,210 to Mobile Number 071xxxx489 (PW9’s mobile number) allegedly because he did not have a Safaricom line. 25.The testimony of Mr. Alex Kuya Omamo, the Head of Security at Flight 540 Airline (PW5) supported PW9’s evidence that on 24th August 2018, PW9 took an early morning flight from Kisumu to Nairobi together with Sharon. PW9 recalled that on arrival, they were met by the 2nd accused at Capital Centre who later catered for their accommodation as he allegedly made efforts to schedule a meeting for them with the 1st accused. 26.Unknown to Sharon and PW9, the 2nd accused had also facilitated the travel of PW28 to Nairobi on the same day ostensibly for the same purpose of having a meeting with the 1st accused. The promised meeting however failed to materialize and disappointed, they all returned to Homa Bay in the evening of the following day. 27.According to PW9 and PW28, between 27th and 29th August 2018, the 2nd accused called them separately using an Airtel line No.0739473321 informing them that in future, they should only communicate with him using that number. He however gave them different reasons explaining why he had acquired the new Airtel line (number). According to PW9, he claimed that it was because he had lost his Safaricom line while according to PW28, he claimed that his Safaricom line had been blocked by children and he had not had time to unblock it. 28.Through the evidence of Noah Omondi Odoyo (PW26), an Airtel shop attendant in Migori, the prosecution alleged that the above Airtel line was registered on 27th August 2018 using national identity card number 0xxxx06 issued in the name of Vincent Abonyo (PW8). In his testimony, PW8 recalled that he had lost his identity card while at Kenya Commercial Bank, Migori branch. He denied having registered the aforesaid Airtel line. 29.PW28 further recalled that on 27th August 2018, the 2nd accused called him using the newly acquired Airtel line. They subsequently met outside Tausi Hotel at Rodi and during the meeting, the 2nd accused asked him to keep off Sharon’s affairs as he would henceforth deal with her issues. 30.On being cross-examined by Mr. Awour for the victims family, PW28 recalled having written a statement confirming that in that meeting, the 2nd accused had asked him how ‘they” could get access to PW9’s and Sharon’s mobile phones since they contained evidence that could “take” the Governor to the media. 31.According to the evidence of PW9, Sharon called him on 3rd September 2018 at about 5:00 p.m. informing him that the 2nd accused had conveyed a request from the 1st accused that they should meet at Rodikopany, Homa Bay County. They acceded to the request and upon arrival at Rodikopany, Sharon contacted the 2nd accused who redirected them to Rongo Town. They proceeded to Graca Hotel in Rongo and waited for the 2nd accused. When he eventually joined them in the Hotel, he informed them that the place was too open for him to communicate the message he had from the 1st accused. He paid the bill for the drink Sharon had taken and requested that they move to another venue. 32.PW9 further testified that as they exited the hotel, they found a dark vehicle parked outside the hotel entrance which the 2nd accused asked them to board claiming it belonged to him. On boarding the vehicle, he noted that it already had two occupants- a driver and his co-driver. PW9 sat behind the driver, Sharon sat in the middle while the 2nd accused sat behind the front passenger seat. 33.The vehicle left the hotel and was first driven towards Rongo Town but subsequently changed direction towards Homabay Town. Along the way, near a petrol station, he saw two people standing by the road side. It was now around 7.30pm. The 2nd accused ordered the driver to slow down and when the driver complied with his instructions, he exited the vehicle. The two unknown men then entered the vehicle and joined PW9 and Sharon at the vehicle’s rear seat sandwiching them between them. 34.PW9 recalled that although he was able to see the two men seated with them at the rear seat, he was unable to see the driver and the man seated at the co-driver’s seat who appeared to be receiving instructions from somewhere as he was constantly on the phone. 35.As the vehicle was being driven towards Homa Bay, one of the men ordered them to switch off their mobile phones and surrender them together with their other valuables which they did. The same man asked him whether he had a tape recorder and the other man started searching his pockets. The man seated next to Sharon asked her about her relationship with PW9 and how she had met the Governor which she explained. The man seated next to PW9 asked him how he had met Sharon and why he was doing a story about the Governor. And as Sharon got distressed and started crying, one of the men told her to stop crying as they were taking her to the Governor. 36.As the conversation continued, the man seated next to him became violent and started strangling him asking him why he was following the story about the Governor. The unknown man lowered his seat to an inclined position and taking advantage of this development, PW9 wiggled his way from his grasp to the door, opened it and escaped from the moving vehicle. 37.PW9 further recalled that on jumping out of the vehicle, he fell on the tarmac and rolled off the road. The vehicle stopped a distance away and two people started running towards him. He started running away in the direction of lights he was seeing from a distance which led him to a home in which he took refuge. 38.The home belonged to Mr. Kennedy Onyango Kasera who testified as PW27. In his evidence, PW27 narrated how on 3rd September 2018 at around 8.30pm, a man stormed into his house in a panic and went straight to his bedroom and hid under the bed. He was surprised because the man was a stranger to him. Upon inquiry, the man (obviously referring to PW9) explained how he had been abducted together with Sharon and how he had escaped. He noted that he had fresh injuries on his hands and knees which were bleeding. He drove him to Kadel Police Post where they reported the matter to PC Willy Okoti (PW6). 39.PW6 in his testimony recalled having noted PW9’s injuries on his palms and knees and that his trouser was torn around the knees. He also noted that he was visibly shaken as he was trembling when making his report. He booked the report and also disseminated it to the OCS Kendu Bay Police Station who, accompanied by other police Officers who included PC Ole Tuwai Birgen (PW11) and PC Roimen Leisalel (PW12), went to Kadel Police Post, picked PW9 and escorted him to Kendu Bay Sub-County Hospital for treatment. 40.At the hospital, he was treated by a clinical officer, Mr.Harun Diero Ajwang (PW10). PW10 in his evidence recalled having noted fresh injuries on PW9’s hands and knee joints which were bleeding. He classified the injuries as soft tissue injuries since there was no fracture. He took treatment notes on a notebook on the basis of which he later filled a P3 form which he produced as P Exhibit 16. 41.In the course of his long and detailed testimony which the court recorded for several days, PW9 identified the vehicle in which he was allegedly abducted together with Sharon. It was motor vehicle registration no. KCL 481K, Toyota Fielder grey in colour (PExhibit17) which according to records maintained at the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) was owned by Ms.Olivia Oloo, the 3rd Accused’s wife. The vehicle was being operated as a taxi and its driver was Mr. Jackson Otieno Gombe who testified as PW38. 42.According to PW38, on 3rd September 2018, the 3rd accused’s wife instructed him to take the vehicle for valuation at Invesco Insurance in Migori. The 3rd accused directed him to the insurance company offices to get the valuers telephone number. After getting in touch with the valuer, he proceeded to Olivia’s house to get a copy of the vehicle’s logbook. On arrival, he found the 2nd, the 3rd accused and another person identified as Diki seated together outside the house. He recalled that as he was leaving after giving him a copy the logbook, the 3rd accused’s wife warned him not to tell anyone what he had seen inside the home. 43.In addition, PW38 testified that later the same day between 4:00 and 5:00 pm, a Police Officer named Elvis (DW3), who was the 1st accused’s bodyguard, called him instructing him to pick the 2nd accused at Uriri at 6:00 pm; that the 2nd accused would thereafter direct him where to go. He knew Elvis as he used to see him with the 1st and 3rd accused and he sometimes gave him work such as picking up customers or relaying information to the 3rd accused or his wife. 44.In his testimony, PW38 recalled that following the above instructions, he drove to Uriri where he found the 2nd accused in the company of two unknown men. They boarded the vehicle and the 2nd accused directed him to drive them to Graca Hotel in Rongo Town which he did. At the hotel, the 2nd accused and the two men alighted. The 2nd accused went to the hotel alone while the two other men stood behind the vehicle. After about 10-20 minutes, the 2nd accused came out of the hotel accompanied by a lady who appeared pregnant and another man. 45.According to PW38, all the people who had been in the company of the 2nd accused boarded the vehicle but the 2nd accused did not. One of the unidentified men instructed him to drive to a nearby petrol station and park by the road side which he did. Shortly thereafter, the 2nd accused joined them appearing to have crossed over on foot from Graca Hotel. The 2nd accused engaged in a discussion with the two men and another who had been standing by the roadside after which the men boarded the vehicle, one on the passenger seat and the other two at the rear seat where the pregnant lady ( Sharon) and the other man ( PW9) had sat. 46.When driving towards Kisumu as directed by one of the unidentified men, he heard the unknown men questioning Sharon and PW9 about their relationship with the 1st accused. He did not follow the conversation as he increased the volume of music in the vehicle. After driving for a while, he sensed a gush of wind blow into the vehicle as if the rear door or window had been opened. He was at the time driving at a speed of about 60KM per hour. He slowed down and asked what was happening. One of the unknown men seated behind him, in response, remarked, “wachana na hii fala,” and he proceeded with the journey. 47.As he continued driving, he was being directed by one of the unidentified men on the roads to follow and he was eventually led to a rough road in a forested area with no homes nearby. He was instructed to stop, switch off the vehicle’s engine as well as lights and wait. This is when he realized that one man was nolonger in the vehicle as only three men and the lady alighted from the vehicle. After about 10–20 minutes, the men returned without the lady. Upon inquiry, he was informed that the lady had been left at their home. He was then directed to drive to Uriri, where the unknown men alighted between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. He thereafter drove to his home in Migori. 48.PW38 also recalled that on the morning of the following day, Olivia summoned him to her house for no apparent reason and on arrival, the 3rd accused took the car keys, left with them and returned them after a short while and without offering any explanation, ordered him to go back to work. 49.The prosecution also tendered evidence that on the same morning (4th September 2018), PW22 Mr. Justus Muindi, a clinical Officer at Migori County Referral Hospital received a call from a man who identified himself as Caspal Obiero. He knew Caspal before because of his association with the then Governor of Migori County who as noted earlier was the 1st accused. He identified Caspal in court as the 3rd accused. 50.PW22 recalled that after their brief conversation, the 3rd accused went to see him in the hospital accompanied by the 2nd accused. The 3rd accused informed him that they wanted his assistance on an issue related to treatment. The 2nd accused then explained that he had been attacked by unknown people at Kisii the previous night and was robbed of money belonging to his boss, the 1st accused; that he needed a medical request form issued by a hospital in Kisii confirming that he had sustained injuries on the previous night in order to protect his job. 51.PW22 then contacted his colleague at Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital (KTRH) Mr. Cliff Momanyi who testified as PW20. PW20 recalled that on 4th September 2018 at around 10.30 am, he received a request from PW22 to assist his friend identified as Mr. Michael Oyamo by issuing him with a medical request form prescribing multiple medical investigations including chest x-rays, MRI and CT scans. Although he did not know or examine the said Michael Oyamo, he fabricated treatment notes and a computer generated outpatient card purportedly issued by KTRH as a favour to his friend PW22. The false medical records were produced in evidence as PExhibit 31 (a) and (b). 52.On the same day at around midday, (4th September 2018), CPL Philomon Fidel Isiepay (PW23) testified that he was at Uriri Police Station when the 2nd accused went to the Police Station and reported a case of abduction. He reported that on the evening of 3rd September 2018, he was at Graca Hotel with a lady known as Sharon and another man and that on leaving the hotel, they were abducted in an undisclosed vehicle; that he found himself in Kisii the following morning having lost Kshs. 270,000 belonging to the 1st accused. 53.PW24 on his part recalled that upon instructions by PW23, he recorded the 2nd accused’s abduction report in the stations occurrence book. He produced the OB entry as PExhibit 35. After the 2nd accused‘s report was recorded, PW23 was made aware of the abduction report made by PW9 the previous evening at Kadel Police Post. He found the 2nd accused’s report suspicious and arrested him for further investigations. 54.Later the same day at around 3pm, Sharon’s lifeless body and that of her unborn child was discovered in a bush near Owade river by Mr. Moses Onditi Oguta (PW7), a resident of Owade village. He was shepherding his cattle towards his home when he stumbled upon the body. He reported the matter at Oyugis Police Station. He was escorted by Police Officers, namely, Inspector Mary Mogire (PW18) and PC Sammy Mindiki (PW19) to the scene where they found members of the public already gathered. They saw the body which was naked lying face down in a pool of blood. 55.As part of her preliminary investigations, PW18 recovered and prepared an inventory of the items they found at the scene. The items included items of clothing and open shoes belonging to Sharon, two used condoms, 3 sachets of trust condoms, two cover packets of trust condoms and a sachet of Simba Warigi (illicit brew). They collected the body and took it to Rachuonyo District Hospital Mortuary for preservation. 56.On 8th September 2018, Sharon’s body was identified by Mr. Victor Ochola Onyango (PW29), the deceased’s uncle to the Government Pathologist Dr. Johansen Oduor (PW1) who conducted an autopsy on the body. In his testimony, PW1 recalled that on examining the body, he noted multiple external injuries consisting of two slash wounds under the right and left ear and a total of seven deep stab wounds, one at the deceased’s abdominal area and the others at several areas of her back. He opined that the deceased's cause of death was severe haemorrhage due to penetrating force trauma with features of manual strangulation. He documented his findings in a post-mortem report which he produced as PExhibit 1. 57.In the course of his examination, PW1 also noted that the deceased’s uterus had a dead foetus which was 28 weeks old. The stab wound to Sharon’s abdomen had penetrated to the uterus, gone through the foetus ‘s abdomen and came out through the umbilicus. He also prepared and signed a post- mortem report form in respect of the foetus which he produced as PExhibit 1 (b). Upon cross- examination by Mr. Kilukumi SC for the 1st accused, PW1 confirmed that with that kind of injury, the foetus did not have a chance of being born. 58.As reports in both the mainstream and social media platforms started circulating on the circumstances in which Sharon and her unborn baby had been found dead and given the public interest the reports had generated, a team of officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations Headquarters (DCI Headquaters) in Nairobi was dispatched to Homa Bay to take over investigations into the matter. They included Chief Inspector Nicholas Konara Ole Sena (PW42) who narrated to the court how investigations in this case were undertaken by the investigating team from DCI Headquaters. 59.According to PW42, together with his co - investigators, they arrived in Homa Bay on 6th September 2018 and commenced investigations. They found the 2nd accused already under arrest. In the course of their investigations, they recorded and reviewed statements from persons who testified as prosecution witnesses including PW21, the Health Records and Information Officer at KTRH. He established from PW21 that the medical records obtained by the 2nd accused from PW20 purportedly issued by KTRH did not emanate from the hospital and they were in fact forgeries. He also claimed that he obtained the forged medical records at Uriri police station where the 2nd accused had presented them when making a false report about his alleged abduction. 60.PW42 also visited Graca Hotel in an attempt to obtain CCTV footage but was unable to obtain any as the device for storage of CCTV images (DVR) was faulty. His investigations also led to recovery of Motor Vehicle KCL 481K which had been used in the abduction of Sharon and PW9. He produced the vehicle in evidence as PExhibit 17. 61.Further investigations led to analysis of DNA profiles generated from the 1st accused and Baby Sharon which, according to the Government Analyst Mr. John Kimani Mungai (PW3) revealed that the 1st accused was the biological father of Baby Sharon. He produced a report documenting his findings dated 11th March 2020 as PExhibit 11. 62.PW42 also caused forensic examination of mobile phones, including an iPhone belonging to the 1st accused and a Huawei tablet belonging to the deceased. The phones were produced as P Exhibits 39, 41, 43 and 49 and the cybercrime forensic report showing text messages and images contained in the aforesaid phones was produced as P Exhibit 51 (a). Notably, the report showed that the phone marked D which belonged to the 1st accused had text messages for two days only- the 12th and 13th of September 2018. 63.PW42 also obtained call data records from two service providers namely, Airtel and Safaricom Ltd in respect of mobile numbers used by the deceased, XYZ, PW28, Accused 1, Accused 2, Accused 3 and PW38 together with their Mpesa records. The reports containing the above details were produced as PExhibits 12,63,64, 65,66,67,70,71,72,73 and 74. 64.PW41 from Airtel Ltd produced subscriber details and call data records for Airtel line No. 0739473321 which was being used by the 2nd accused. The subscriber details showed that the line was registered on 27th August 2018 under the name of Vincent Abonyo of ID card No. xxxx06. 65.In the course of his investigations, PW42 also recorded the statement of PW39, Ms. Fatma Khalid, an administrator in the car tracking firm known as Qool Point Services which showed that the car tracking system fixed in motor vehicle Regs. No. KCL 481K (the subject vehicle) was inactive on 3rd September 2018 and was reactivated on the following day 4th September 2018. According to her evidence, this meant that the tracking device had either been tempered with or its simcard did not have credit or had low signal but added that tempering with the tracking device could not be detected on the system if its simcard did not have credit. 66.After conclusion of his investigations, PW42 recommended the prosecution of the three accused persons with the offences charged in this case. 67.At the close of the prosecution’s case, this court, in a ruling delivered on 30th January 2025, determined that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the three accused persons in count 1 and put them on their defence in respect of that count. 68.In respect of Count 2, the court found that by virtue of the born alive principle which was incorporated into Kenyan law by Section 214 of the Penal Code, Baby Sharon, being a foetus which died in its mother’s womb, did not fit the description of a person within the meaning of Section 203 of the Penal Code which is the provision that creates the offence of murder. In the result, this court found that the accused persons did not have a case to answer in Count 2 and acquitted them accordingly in Count 2. The Defence Case 69.In their defence, each accused person elected to give a sworn statement. The 1st and 3rd accused persons did not call additional witnesses but the 2nd accused called two witnesses. 70.In his evidence, the 1st accused denied having committed the offence as alleged or having conspired with the 2nd and 3rd accused persons or any other person to murder the deceased. He admitted having had an intimate sexual relationship with the deceased from November 2017 and that in February or March 2018, he decided to terminate the relationship allegedly because he discovered that the deceased had lied to him about having a stationary and boutique business, the number of her children and the men in her life. 71.The 1st accused also testified that when sharon informed him about the pregnancy in March 2018, although he had decided to terminate their relationship, he was comfortable with the pregnancy and continued giving her financial support for her upkeep and antenatal clinics either directly or through the 2nd accused or PW28. He however admitted that by March 2018, he had grown distant and the level of his financial support had dwindled. 72.The 1st accused also supported PW9’s testimony that sometimes in August 2018, he called PW9 and gave him an appointment to visit him in his home at Rapogi. He testified that XYZ honoured the appointment and went to his home accompanied by PW28; that the three of them had a meeting which was also attended by his wife. 73.He further recalled that in the meeting, PW9 threatened to publish his relationship with Sharon in the media; that in response, he told him to go ahead since his family and his communication team already knew about it and the information was in the public domain through the social media. 74.Regarding his interactions with PW28, the 1st accused admitted having had meetings with him in Nairobi and having used him as an intermediary to channel funds to Sharon in addition to the 2nd accused. He testified that through PW28, he managed to have the deceased abandon her earlier demands and had accepted to have him buy for her a plot in rural HomaBay in which he would construct and furnish for her a three bedroom house. He also admitted that this promise had not been fulfilled at the time Sharon met her death. 75.Lastly, the 1st accused raised an alibi claiming that on 3rd September 2018 when the offence was committed, he was already in Nairobi having travelled from Migori to Nairobi by road on 2nd September 2018; that he only got to learn about PW9’s and Sharon’s abduction on the following day after he was informed about it by his Communication’s Director. 76.On his part, the 2nd accused also denied having had any role in the death of Sharon and claimed that the prosecution witnesses had misrepresented facts. He however admitted that at the material time, he was working as the 1st accused’s Personal Assistant and that after he got to know Sharon and her relationship with the 1st accused, he became the liaison person between her, the 1st accused and PW28 as the 1st accused used to send him with money to deliver to Sharon either directly or through PW28. 77.The 2nd accused in addition admitted that on 23rd August 2018, he was in Nairobi together with the 1st accused on official duty and that in the evening, he was at Sagret Hotel from where he sent Kshs.22,000 to PW9 through Mpesa using PW4’s Safaricom line. The money was to facilitate sharon’s and PW9’s travel to Nairobi on the following day. 78.According to the 2nd accused, he had organized the Nairobi meeting as the deceased had pleaded with him to schedule a meeting between her, PW9, PW28 and the 1st accused to have the 1st accused resolve differences that had emerged between them. He recalled that when PW9 and Sharon arrived in Nairobi on 24th August 2018, the 3rd accused accompanied him to meet them at Capital Centre and also accompanied him to meet PW28 later in the day. 79.Further, the 2nd accused admitted having acquired an Airtel line number 039473321 allegedly at the request of the deceased to facilitate easy communication between them. He admitted that the line was not in his name claiming that he bought it when it was already registered in another person’s name. 80.He also admitted having called Sharon, PW9 and PW28 telling them to henceforth communicate with him using that line only. He explained that the new line was dedicated to Sharon, PW9 and PW28 as his regular safaricom and Airtel lines were used for work or personal business and could get very busy. 81.Regarding the events of 3rd September 2018, the 2nd accused testified that he spent the morning and afternoon performing official duties in Migori County, including preparations for an upcoming official trip to Rwanda. He denied having attended a meeting in Olivia’s home in the morning. He however admitted having convened a meeting between him, Sharon and PW9 that evening which happened at Graca Hotel. 82.He recalled that while in the Hotel, he had some discussion with Sharon and informed her that he had taken to her Kshs. 100,000 from the 1st accused which he gave her in two batches of Kshs.50,000. 83.He confirmed having left the hotel accompanied by Sharon and PW9 adding that when they got to the parking area, Sharon and PW9 boarded a black vehicle, a Toyota Wish, and left. He denied having boarded the vehicle with them. He claimed that the hotel’s watchman flagged for him a motor cycle which took him to Rongo from where he boarded a taxi to his home in Migori. 84.The 2nd accused also testified that on 4th September 2018, he started his journey to Nairobi by road early in the morning to catch a flight at JKIA for his planned official trip to Rwanda. While near Kisii, he received a call from the Migori County Communications Director asking him to check social media reports which were implicating him in the abduction of Sharon and PW9. He was instructed to report to Migori Police Station. 85.Upon receipt of this information, he aborted his trip to Nairobi, drove to the Governor’s office in Migori, deposited money for his per diem and for reasons he did not disclose, instead of reporting to Migori Police Station as instructed, he presented himself at Uriri Police Station where he was arrested. 86.He denied having made any abduction report at Uriri Police Station on 4th September 2018 as alleged or having had any interaction with PW22 regarding preparation and issuance of forged medical records. He maintained that his role in matters pertaining to Sharon and the 1st accused was limited to that of a messenger looking out for Sharon’s welfare. 87.As stated earlier, the 2nd accused called two witnesses in support of his case. The first witness was Mr. Omondi Elvis Okoth who testified as DW3. In his evidence, he stated that at the material time, he was a Police Officer serving as one of the 1st accused’s bodyguards; that he had served the 1st accused in that capacity for ten years. 88.He admitted knowing Olivia (the 3rd accused’s wife) but denied having attended a meeting in her home on the morning of 3rd September 2018. He claimed that he did not know the late Sharon and only learnt about her after her death. He avowed that he first met PW38 on 4th September 2018 after the deceased had been murdered. 89.The 2nd accused’s second witness was Mr. Patrick Nganga Mwangi who testified as DW4. He testified that he was the Principal Officer in Quantum Motor Assesors and Valuers, a firm dealing with accident assessments and valuation of vehicles. He gave his qualifications as a Diploma in Automative Engineering from the Kenya Polytechnic and a certificate of proficiency in Insurance from the College of Insurance. 90.He recalled having received instructions from the Law Firm of Prof. Tom Ojienda and Associates seeking expert opinion on the likely consequences of a passenger who was of average height with a lean and athletic body jumping from a vehicle moving at a speed of between 80 and 100 KM per hour landing on tarmac. In his opinion which he documented in a report produced as DExhibit 5(b), such a passenger would be expected to sustain extensive and severe injuries including fractures or death. 91.On being cross-examined by Miss Gikui for the state, DW4 conceded that he did not conduct any demonstrations, simulations, or reconstructions of the scene using compact devices to determine possible outcomes. He instead relied on sketches that he did not produce before the court. He admitted that his expertise was limited to motor vehicle assessments but not assessment of possible medical injuries that may result from the kind of scenario referred to him by the 2nd accused’s advocates. 92.Lastly, the 3rd accused testified as DW5. He denied having committed the offence as alleged but admitted that in the year 2018, he worked at Migori County as a clerical officer and that Olivia was his second wife and owner of Motor Vehicle Regs. No. KCL 481K. He claimed that on 3rd September 2018, he spent the entire day at his place of work and only went to Olivia’s home in the evening. He denied having gone to Olivia’s house in the morning or meeting with the 2nd accused on that day. 93.He further testified that he had met the late Sharon only once when he had accompanied the 2nd accused to a meeting in Homa Bay town in which the deceased was a participant. He added that he did not have any personal interactions with Sharon and did not even know about her relationship with the 1st accused until he read about it in the social media. 94.He also denied having contacted PW22 on 4th September 2018 or having requested him to procure false medical reports for the 2nd accused. He also denied having seen the 2nd accused on that day. 95.On cross- examination by Ms. Gikui for the prosecution, the 3rd accused confirmed that between 2013 and 2018, he was based at the Migori Governor’s office. He also admitted having accompanied the 2nd accused to Capital Centre on 24th August 2018 when he had gone to meet Sharon and PW9. He also confirmed that in his statement to the police, he had admitted that he was at his 2nd wife’s house ( Olivia’ house) on 3rd September 2018 at around lunch time. In addition, he confirmed that PW38 had been the driver of Motor vehicle Regs. No. KCL 481K ( the subject Vehicle) since the year 2017 when it was bought by Olivia. 96.After close of the defence case, learned counsel on record for the parties filed lengthy and elaborate final written submissions which I have duly considered together with all the authorities cited. Analysis and Determination 97.Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence in its entirety together with the written submissions filed on behalf of the prosecution and the accused persons, I find that the only issue arising for my determination is whether the prosecution has proved to the standard required by the law that the three accused persons whether on their own or jointly with others not before the court murdered Sharon Beryl Otieno as alleged. 98.The offence of murder is created under Section 203 of the Penal Code which stipulates that;“Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.” 99.A plain reading of the above provision reveals that the offence of murder has three essential ingredients which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt before it can secure a conviction. The three ingredients have been identified in numerous authorities which I need not rehash here. It will suffice to cite the authority of Anthony Ndegwa Ngari Vs Republic [2014] (KLR) in which the Court of Appeal held as follows;“For the offence of murder, there are three elements that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt 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.” 95.It is clear from the foregoing that the key ingredients of the offence of murder are as follows;i)proof of death of the deceased,ii.that the death was caused by an unlawful act,iii.that the accused, with malice aforethought, committed the unlawful act which caused death of the deceased. 100.In general criminal jurisprudence, it is trite that for a crime to be committed, there has to be a criminal act accompanied by a guilty mind. As correctly observed by Lord Kenyon C.J in Fowler V Padget (1798) 7 T.T at 514 ;” To Constitute a crime, there must, as a general rule, be both a guilty mind and a criminal act”In other words, the criminal act otherwise known as the actus reus and the guilty mind or criminal intent known as mens rea must converge for a crime to be committed. 101.For the offence of murder, the actus reus is the unlawful taking of another person’s life while the mens rea is malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a state of mind that denotes culpability or moral blameworthiness on the part of the person accused of murder. It is symbolized by acts or conduct which demonstrates intention or design to cause the death or grievous bodily harm of another as opposed to causing death by accident or mischance. 102.Section 206 of the Penal Code sets out the circumstances in which malice aforethought can be ascertained. It provides thus:-“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.” 103.Before addressing the issue isolated above for my determination, I think it is important to point out, at the outset, that in all criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. This burden is anchored on the cardinal principle of the law of evidence as set out in Section 107 (1) of the Evidence Act which states that:“Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove those facts exist.” 104.As far as criminal cases are concerned, the prosecution’s burden of proof is entrenched in Article 50 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 which guarantees to every accused person the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. 105.The standard of proof in criminal cases which, as noted earlier, is proof beyond reasonable doubt was defined by Lord Denning in the case of Miller Vs Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372 in the following terms ;“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence “ofcourse it is possible but not in the least probable’’ the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt….." 106.What the above definition means is that it is not every doubt that amounts to the reasonable doubt envisaged by the law. What constitutes reasonable doubt was set out in Commonwealth V Webster 59 Mass (5 Cush) 295 ( Mass, 1850) as follows ;“…..reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge……” 107.From the foregoing, it is clear that reasonable doubt will have been created if at the conclusion of a trial, the trial court was persuaded to find that there was a real or high probability that the accused person did not commit the offence as charged. In such a case, the prosecution would have failed to prove its case against the accused person and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal. 108.Having set out the law on what constitutes the prosecution’s burden and standard of proof, I now turn to address my mind to the question whether the prosecution has established in this case the essential elements of the offence of murder against the accused persons. 109.Starting with whether sharon’s death occurred and whether or not it was unlawful, from my analysis of the evidence adduced by both the prosecution and the defence as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties, I find that her death was not contested by any of the accused persons. 110.In any event, it was proved through the evidence of PW7 who discovered her lifeless body near Owade bridge on 4th September 2018, PW18 and PW19 who collected her body from the scene and PW29 who identified the body to PW1 who conducted the post-mortem. There is therefore no doubt that the death of Sharon occurred as alleged. 111.The next question to determine is whether Sharon’s death was lawful or unlawful. In this regard, Article 26 (1) of the Constitution is relevant. Article 26 (1) guarantees to every person the right to life and proceeds to decree at Sub Article 3 as follows ;“A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorized by this constitution or other written law” 112.In my view, the import of the above constitutional provision is that there are some homicides which are excusable in law such as those sanctioned by the law, for instance, the death penalty or those resulting from accident or inadvertence. 113.In Gusambizi Wesonga V Republic, (1948) 15 EACA 65, the court gave guidance on what may constitute lawful homicide when it held as follows;“Every homicide is presumed to be unlawful except where circumstances make it excusable or where it has been authorized by law. For a homicide to be excusable, it must have been caused under justifiable circumstances for example in self defence or property”. 114.In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence of Dr. Johansen Odour, the Police Pathologist (PW1) that the deceased died as a result of multiple and severe injuries in the form of deep stab wounds inflicted on different parts of her body, mainly targeting her vital organs including her abdomen which housed her unborn baby. According to the evidence of PW1, the deceased’s cause of death was severe haemorrhage due to penetrating force trauma, with features of manual strangulation. 115.Given the above evidence which was not contested, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased’s death was not caused by natural causes and it was not as a result of an accident or inadvertence. I do not therefore have any hesitation in finding that her death was unlawful. 116.The singular question now left for my determination is whether, the accused persons, with malice aforethought, participated in the unlawful killing of the deceased. 117.As correctly submitted by learned counsel representing each of the accused persons, the prosecution’s case in this case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. This is so because none of the forty two witnesses who testified in support of the prosecution case gave direct evidence linking the accused persons to the commission of the crime. None of the witnesses placed the accused persons at the scene of crime and none claimed to have witnessed how the deceased met her death. 118.Before proceeding further, I think it is important to understand what circumstantial evidence entails and the threshold set by the law for it to sustain a safe conviction. 119.Circumstantial evidence is evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances from which the existence of a fact in issue may reasonably be inferred. It does not directly establish the fact to be proved but leads to its proof through a process of logical inference. 120.The Evidence Act, Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya, does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence with respect to admissibility. Both types of evidence are recognized by the law and may sustain a conviction if they meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 121.The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Republic Vs Ahmad Abdolfadhi Mohammed & another [2019] KESC 48 (KLR), comprehensively unpacked what constituted circumstantial evidence and its application. The court expressed itself as follows;“(55)The law on the definition, application and reliability of circumstantial evidence, has, for decades been well settled in common law as well as other jurisdictions. Circumstantial evidence is “indirect [or] oblique evidence … that is not given by eyewitness testimony.” It is “[a] indirect form of proof, permitting inferences from the circumstances surrounding disputed questions of fact.” It is also said to be “evidence of some collateral fact, from which the existence or non-existence of some fact in question may be inferred as a probable consequence….”(56)On its application, circumstantial evidence is like any other evidence. Though, it finds its probative value in reasonable, and not speculative, inferences to be drawn from the facts of a case, and, in contrast to direct testimonial evidence, it is conceptualized in circumstances surrounding disputed questions of fact, circumstantial evidence should never be given a derogatory tag…..” 122.It is settled law that for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, it must consist of credible and cogent evidence which irresistibly pointed to the conclusion that the accused person, and nobody else, committed the offence charged. The circumstances should be firmly established in a way that they formed a chain so complete that they were incapable of any other hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused as charged. 123.The above legal position was succinctly articulated by the Court of Appeal in Sawe V. Republic [2003] KLR 364 when it determined that:“In order to justify a conviction on circumstantial evidence, 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. There must be no other co-existing circumstances weakening the chain of circumstances relied upon. The burden of proving facts that justify the drawing of this inference from the facts to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence remain with the prosecution. It is a burden which never shifts to the party accused…..’'. 124.In denying the offence, each accused person denied having played any role in planning or causing the death of the deceased. The 1st accused maintained that although he had terminated his intimate relationship with Sharon, he had continued providing her with financial support to ensure her upkeep and general wellbeing including that of her pregnancy up to the very end; that this coupled with the fact that his relationship with the deceased was an open secret as it was within the knowledge of members of his family and was already in the public domain, he had no reason to want Sharon dead. 125.The 2nd accused on the other hand asserted that the only role he played in matters concerning Sharon was the role of a messenger to convey money or other communication from the 1st accused which was only meant to ensure her welfare; that for this reason, he did not have any motive to kill her. 126.On his part, the 3rd accused claimed that he barely knew Sharon as he had met her only once and had absolutely no reason to be involved in her death. 127.In view of the accused persons assertions regarding lack of motive to kill the deceased, I find it necessary at this juncture to address the issue of motive and its place in criminal responsibility. 128.Motive, simply put, is the reason for committing an offence. It is provided for under Section 9 (3) of the Penal Code as follows: -“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.” 129.When discussing motive, the Court of Appeal in Libambula V Republic [2003] KLR 683, noted that proof of motive was not essential to proving a crime but may be relevant, particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence - See also Choge Vs Republic [1985] KLR 1. 130.With specific reference to the offence of murder, the same court held in Robert Onchiri Ogeto Vs Republic, KECA 148 (KLR) that prove of motive was not essential to proof of malice aforethought. The court held that;“The prosecution does not have to prove the motive for commission of any crime, neither is evidence of motive sufficient by itself to prove the commission of a crime by the person who posses the motive. By section 206 (a) of the Penal Code, malice aforethought is deemed to be established by evidence showing an intention to cause death or to do grievous harm. It can be reasonably inferred that when the appellant stabbed deceased with a knife on the chest he intended to cause death or grievous harm to the deceased. That being the case, we are satisfied that the appellant was properly convicted for the offence of murder.” 131.In view of the provisions of Section 9 (3) of the Penal Code and the above authorities, I find that proof of motive though relevant was not necessary in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons as charged in this case. 132.Regarding the doctrine of common intention which was the centerpiece or lay at the heart of the prosecution case, the doctrine is codified in our law under Section 21 of the Penal Code which provides that:“When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.” 133.The Court of Appeal addressed the doctrine of common intention in Njoroge Vs Republic [1983] KLR 197 and confirmed that applicability of the doctrine does not require proof of an express agreement; that it may be inferred from conduct, presence and participation of the accused persons before, during and after commission of the crime. 134.The level of participation even though minimal or the role played by each offender even though insignificant attracted full criminal responsibility if done in furtherance of the common criminal intention. 135.The above principle read together with the definition of principal offenders set out in Section 20 of the Penal Code ensures that criminal liability attached equally to all those who contributed to a joint criminal enterprise. 136.Section 20 of the Penal Code provides that criminal liability applies equally to persons who actually commit the act constituting the offence and to persons who aids or abets others in committing the offence or those who procures others to commit the offence. Any person who falls in any of the above categories is treated as a principal offender and must carry the full weight of criminal responsibility. 137.In this case, the 1st accused admitted the prosecution’s claim that he had an intimate sexual relationship with Sharon as a result of which she became pregnant. Although I wholly concur with the 1st accused’s submission that impregnating a consenting young lady of age was not a criminal offence, it is clear from the totality of the evidence on record that this particular pregnancy formed the basis of subsequent events which culminated into the unlawful death of the deceased. 138.My thorough analysis of the evidence adduced by both the prosecution and the defence shows that the 1st accused’s claim that he had accepted the deceased’s pregnancy and that is why he continued giving her financial support for her upkeep even though he had terminated their relationship was actually not sincere and was not true. 139.I make this finding because there is evidence from PW9 and PW30, Sharons mother which was not expressly challenged by the 1st accused, that the 1st accused had exerted pressure on Sharon to abort the pregnancy and had given her Kshs. 30,000 for that purpose which pressure Sharon refused to succumb to following advice from her mother. 140.Granted that it may be true that part of the reasons the 1st accused decided to terminate his relationship with Sharon was his discovery that she had allegedly lied to him about having a business and her family life, in his own admission, the 1st accused learnt about the pregnancy in March 2018 and this is the same time he says he decided to terminate their relationship. 141.His claim that he continued to give Sharon financial support for her upkeep albeit at a reduced scale cannot be true in the light of evidence that after learning about the pregnancy, he became evasive, refused to pick her calls and withdrew his financial support to the extent that Sharon was forced to beg for money from PW28 and to seek his intervention in identifying a journalist to make her plight public. 142.If indeed the 1st accused was the magnanimous, considerate, responsible and caring man he presented himself to be and he genuinely intended to give Sharon both financial and material support throughout her pregnancy as he alleged, he would not have distanced himself and demonstrated indifference to her welfare from March till July 2018 when PW9 appeared at the scene with imminent threats of publishing his illicit affair in the mainstream media. 143.It cannot be mere coincidence that the 1st accused suddenly developed interest in the deceased’s well being and that of her unborn child when her decision to cause publication of their illicit relationship in the print media was communicated to him by PW9 in the presence of PW28. 144.The 1st accused was emphatic in his defence that he was not at all concerned about the deceased’s threat to publicize their love affair because in any event, it was an open secret as it was already in the public domain and members of his family knew about it. 145.Although it may be true that members of his family and some staff of the Migori County Government knew about the affair, it cannot be entirely true that all members of the public in the country who held him in high esteem as the political head of the County Government of Migori knew about it. For instance, PW28, a resident of Homa Bay did not know about the relationship until Sharon herself told him about it. 146.There is also evidence that even though claiming that his relationship with Sharon was already in the public domain, the 1st accused wanted to contain it within the scope it had reached and prevent it from further spreading to other members of the public. To illustrate this point, I refer to the evidence of PW9 relating to what the 1st accused told him when he was leaving his Rapogi home after the meeting. This is what he said;“The Governor then escorted us outside the main house. We stood at the staircase. He bid us goodbye and promised to keep in touch after instructing me not to tell anybody about Sharon’s pregnancy” 147.Further, when under cross-examination by Mr. Awour for the victims family, PW28 who the 1st accused admitted was a truthful witness recalled stating in his witness statement that when in a meeting with the 2nd accused outside Tausi Hotel, the 2nd accused had asked him how they could get access to the deceased’s and PW9’s handsets “since they contained evidence that could take the Governor to the media.” 148.It is clear from the evidence that the information in the two handsets only related to Sharon’s relationship with the 1st accused and had nothing to do with the the 2nd accused. The concerns raised by the 2nd accused could only have emanated from the 1st accused demonstrating that he did not want the information published in the media. 149.There is also evidence that the 1st accused kept requesting PW28 to contain Sharon by identifying her needs and communicating them to him. Further, there is uncontested evidence from PW9 that a few days after the Rapogi meeting, the 2nd accused called him telling him that Sharon’s matter would be settled amicably which in my view amounted to an attempt to pre-empt publication of the story. 150.From the above evidence and taking into account the exorbitant demands the deceased had made to the 1st accused as a precondition to withholding her intention of going to the media with her story, i am persuaded to agree with the prosecution’s submissions that the financial support given by the 1st accused to the deceased through either PW28 or the 2nd accused was not genuinely intended to promote her wellbeing or to secure her welfare but was designed to contain, manage or make her abandon her intention of publicizing their affair as a scheme to eliminate her and to silence PW9 was being devised. The same argument applies to the 1st accused’s promise to buy a plot and construct a three bedroomed house for Sharon in Homabay since the promise was yet to be fulfilled by the time she met her death. 151.In my considered view, the 1st accused had a very strong motive to unlawfully end Sharon’s life to ensure that his illicit affair with her was not widely publicized through the print media to save himself from possible public embarrassment and reputational harm and to safeguard his political standing. There is no doubt the 1st accused would have been the ultimate beneficiary of such a plot. 152.In the premises, I am persuaded to agree with the prosecution that to eradicate the imminent threat of having his name and reputation dragged through the mud by publication in the mainstream media of his relationship with Sharon, the 1st accused instigated a scheme to eliminate Sharon and using his influence as the Governor of Migori County, he enlisted the services of his trusted aids, the 2nd accused who was his Personal Assistant (PA) and the 3rd accused who was a clerical officer in the County Government of Migori attached to the Governor’s office. 153.In my considered view, this must be why the 1st accused insisted to PW9 and PW28 that all matters concerning Sharon’s pregnancy should be directed to the 2nd accused and he consistently used the 2nd accused as his intermediary with Sharon, PW9 and PW28. The plan apparently also covered PW9 but he was lucky to escape before it was finally executed. 154.The fact that the 2nd accused was actually inducted into the scheme devised to do away with Sharon can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that shortly after the Rapogi meeting, the 2nd accused not only delivered money and other messages to Sharon and PW28 on behalf of the 1st accused but he also embarked on activities meant to disguise or conceal his communication with Sharon, PW9 and PW28 as well as Mpesa transactions. He also attempted to isolate Sharon by warning PW9 and PW28 to keep off all matters related to her as he would henceforth deal with them. 155.The Mpesa transaction undertaken through PW4 is part of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the 2nd accused’s efforts at concealing his identity well before the offence was committed. 156.The 2nd accused’s claim that he sent money to PW9 on 23rd August 2018 through the Mpesa account of PW4 allegedly because he did not have his identity card was refuted by PW4 who was clear in her evidence that she assisted the customer who turned out to be the 2nd accused because he claimed that he did not have a Safaricom line. 157.Considering that the 2nd accused admitted having had an active Safaricom line and considering also that PW4 did not know him before, I find that she did not have a reason to give false evidence against him. I consequently accept her evidence and find that the reason the 2nd accused lied that he did not have a Safaricom line is because he wanted to use PW4’s Mpesa account in order to conceal his identity. 158.To my mind, the only reason that would have motivated the 2nd accused to hide his identity in the aforesaid transaction was to avoid being linked to the Nairobi visit because it had been planned for an unlawful purpose tied to the scheme to silence Sharon and PW9. 159.Another strand of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is that on 27th August 2018, the 2nd accused acquired an Airtel line No. 0739473321 again with the aim of disguising his communication with Sharon, PW9 and PW28 and to conceal his identity. 160.According to the prosecution, the 2nd accused registered the Airtel line fraudulently using an identity card earlier stolen from Vincent Abonyo (PW8); that he immediately disseminated the line to PW9 and PW28 with instructions that they should henceforth use it when communicating with him. 161.In his defence, the 2nd accused admitted having acquired the aforesaid line but denied having fraudulently registered it using a stolen identity card. He claimed that he acquired the line at the request of the deceased in order to facilitate easy communication between them. He further claimed that when he acquired the line, it was already registered in the name of PW8. He however admitted that he acquired the line for exclusive communication between him, the deceased, PW9 and PW28 but he continued using his regular Safaricom and Airtel lines to communicate with everybody else. 162.In his evidence, PW26 who registered the Airtel line was unequivocal that to obtain an Airtel line, a person had to register its sim card using an identity card; that the customer who acquired the aforesaid line who he could not remember registered it using an identity card issued in the name of Vincent Abonyo. 163.PW26’s evidence was not shaken in cross-examination by the 2nd accused. In my opinion, the 2nd accused’s inconsistent explanations to PW9 and PW28 regarding the reason he had procured the line demonstrated lack of truthfulness and undermines the credibility of his testimony. PW26 did not even know the person he had served on the day in question and I am convinced that his evidence represented the factual position regarding how the 2nd accused acquired the Airtel line. 164.Drawing from the foregoing, I am satisfied that the 2nd accused fraudulently acquired the Airtel line for the sole objective of concealing his communication with the deceased, PW9 and PW28 so that any such communication could not in future be traced to him. The only inference that can be drawn from the 2nd accused’s penchant for concealing his identity in his communication or transactions related to Sharon and PW9 is that he had knowledge of a plot to either harm or eliminate them and was covering his tracks to avoid detection or being associated with it in the aftermath of its execution. 165.More importantly, the fact that the line was fraudulently acquired just days before Sharon’s 's murder coupled with the 2nd accused's insistence that the line be used as the exclusive channel of communication between him, Sharon, PW9, PW28, the only two people who had become Sharon’s close associates leads to an irresistible inference that the line was acquired as part of the acts of planning and preparation for commission of the offence. 166.The 2nd accused’s claim that he had acquired the line to ease communication between him and Sharon, PW9 and PW28 is not plausible because had this been the case, he would have simply requested them to use the line as an alternative to his other safaricom and Airtel lines. 167.Regarding the events of 3rd September 2018 which needless to state is the date that Sharon was abducted and subsequently killed, the prosecution led evidence seeking to prove that there was a preparatory meeting held at Olivia’s home in the morning. PW38 testified that he found the 2nd and 3rd accused seated outside the home in an apparent meeting with one Diki. Olivia and Elvis (DW4) were inside the house. He had gone to pick a copy of the subject vehicle’s logbook to facilitate its valuation. 168.The 2nd and 3rd accused denied having attended any such meeting claiming that they did not leave their places of work on that day. Under cross-examination however, the 3rd accused recalled that in his statement to the police, he had admitted that he was at the home at around mid day. 169.Although the 2nd accused claimed that on that day he was busy in his office preparing for an official trip to Rwanda on the following day, the email correspondence from the Travel Agent which he produced as D Exhibit 4 revealed that as late as 12.59 pm, his ticket for his alleged planned travel to Rwanda had not been confirmed as it was still on the waiting list. 170.Elvis, (DW4) also denied being present in Olivia’s home at the time alleged. I must immediately state that in my assessment, Elvis was not a truthful witness considering that he confirmed having worked as one of the 1st accused’s body guards for ten years yet he claimed that he did not know Sharon or her relationship with the 1st accused. This in my view defeats logic and is highly incredulous. 171.The 3rd accused in his submissions impeached PW38’s evidence on the existence of a meeting in Olivia’s home on the morning of 3rd September 2018 on grounds that there was evidence (PExhibit 71) showing that Olivia was not at home as she had called PW38 at 12.03 pm when within Narok County. In his evidence under cross-examination however, PW38 clarified that he had confused the time he had gone to the home; that it was not in the morning and was after 12.03 pm since he went to the home after talking to Olivia. 172.Given the above evidence and considering PW38’s clarification with regard to the time he went to Olivia’s home, I am satisfied that there was a meeting in one of the homes of the 3rd accused as alleged. 173.According to the prosecution, the above meeting was followed with another one convened by the 2nd accused to meet with Sharon and PW9 at Graca Hotel in the evening supposedly to deliver a message from the Governor (1st accused) but the meeting was meant to facilitate final execution of the plan to murder Sharon. 174.In his evidence, the 2nd accused admitted having met Sharon and PW9 at Graca Hotel at around 7pm to deliver money in the sum of Kshs.100,000 to Sharon. As noted earlier, the 2nd accused denied the accounts given by PW9 and PW38 regarding how he parted company with them after the meeting. 175.According to the evidence of PW9, after leaving the hotel, the 2nd accused directed them to board a dark motor vehicle which was waiting outside the hotel’s entrance. He claimed that the 2nd accused boarded the vehicle with them together an unidentified man but as the vehicle drove towards Kisumu, he alighted midway and in his place, two other men boarded and sat at the rear seat sandwiching him and Sharon before the vehicle sped off. 176.PW38 on the other hand testified that at the material time, he had driven the 2nd accused together with two unidentified men to Graca Hotel. That the 2nd accused entered the hotel alone and came out a few minutes later accompanied by a lady who appeared pregnant and another man. He did not board the vehicle but his companions did including the unidentified men. Instead, the 2nd accused directed him to drive to a nearby Petrol Station and park by the road side; that the 2nd accused walked to the petrol station apparently on foot and after conversing with the unidentified men, the men boarded the vehicle leaving the accused behind. 177.I have noted the discrepancy between PW9's and PW38’s evidence regarding whether or not the 2nd accused boarded the subject vehicle after leaving Graca Hotel. In their written submissions, learned counsel for each accused person submitted at length on the aforementioned contradictions and others noted in PW9 and PW38 evidence and asserted that the contradictions proved that the evidence of these two witnesses was “planted” and fabricated and could not be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused persons as charged. 178.Given the contradictions in the evidence of PW9 and PW38 and in view of the defence’s submissions that they adversely affected the prosecution case, I find it prudent to now address those contradictions and the credibility of PW9 and PW38. 179.The test used by courts to determine the impact of contradictions or inconsistencies on the prosecution case is a substantive one: it requires the court to inquire whether the contradictions or inconsistencies were so material to the issues in question that they would deal a fatal blow to the prosecution case. 180.In Erick Onyango Ondeng’ V Republic [2014] (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are natural and inevitable where different witnesses recount the same events from different perspectives. Such inconsistencies do not render the prosecution's case unreliable unless they were material, go to the root of the charge, create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, or demonstrate deliberate falsehood. Only grave and unexplained contradictions that affect the substance of the prosecution's case may justify rejecting the evidence. 181.Similarly, in Richard Munene V Republic [2018] KECA 186 [KLR] the Court of Appeal pronounced itself as follows;“It is a settled principle of law however, that it is not every trifling contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witness that will be fatal to its case. It is only when such inconsistencies or contradictions are substantial and fundamental to the main issues in question and thus necessarily creates some doubt in the mind of the trial court that an accused person will be entitled to benefit from it…. ‘’ 182.In addition to the contradictions outlined above in the evidence of PW9 and PW38 regarding whether or not the 2nd accused boarded the subject vehicle at Graca Hotel, the credibility of PW9 was also impugned mainly on two fronts. First, it was submitted that he was not a truthful witness because he had earlier described the subject vehicle as black but when the vehicle was produced in court for identification, it turned out that it was grey in colour. 183.Secondly, it was submitted that it was not possible for him to jump out of a moving vehicle travelling at a speed of 80 KM per hour and survive or survive with only minor injuries without serious fractures. 184.With regard to PW38, it was submitted that he was a planted witness; that his evidence was full of falsehoods and should not be believed because he gave different statements to the police during investigations some of which differed with his evidence before the court. 185.I have keenly considered the contradictions which the defence has made heavy weather of during cross-examination and in submissions. I find that the contradictions in the evidence of PW9 and PW38 related to whether the 2nd accused boarded the vehicle at the hotel, whether the vehicle had music and whether the late Sharon loudly expressed distress when the vehicle was on transit. In my considered view, the contradictions related to peripheral matters that did not go to the root of the prosecution case. 186.In my opinion, whether the 2nd accused boarded the vehicle at the hotel or walked on foot to link up with the unidentified men at a nearby Petrol Station is immaterial as both witnesses confirmed that he was present and involved at the decisive moment. And although the 2nd accused in his defence denied knowledge of or any association with the unidentified men, he did not challenge the evidence of PW9 and PW38 during cross-examination about the presence of the unidentified men or his alleged association with them. 187.To my mind, while the accounts of PW9 and PW38 differ on the precise sequence of events, they converge on the critical point: that on 3rd September 2018, the 2nd accused was with the deceased and PW9 at Graca Hotel in the company of unidentified men and the final point of separation was either at the hotel gate or the roadside near the Petrol Station. 188.With respect to the contradictions in PW9’s evidence, PW9 explained that he had described the subject vehicle as dark/ black because he had seen it at night in circumstances that did not allow him to see its colour properly. This explanation is in my view reasonable considering that even in ordinary circumstances, colour grey fits the description of a dark as opposed to a bright colour like white, cream or yellow and may look like black when viewed in the darkness. 189.In any event, it is common knowledge that a vehicle is identified through its registration number and not through its colour. In my considered opinion, the contradictions in PW9 and PW38’s evidence were not fundamental to the key issues in question in this case and were thus not fatal to the prosecution case. 190.Regarding the challenge on PW9’s and PW38’s credibility, contrary to the defence’s submissions, I find nothing on record that would cast aspersions on the credibility of the above witnesses. I watched the witnesses as they testified and in my view, they gave clear, detailed and consistent eye witness accounts of the events that took place on 3rd September 2018. 191.PW38 satisfactorily explained that the few contradictions in the various statements he recorded with the police were as a result of the structured approach used by investigating officers which restricted him to answering only questions put to him and were thus not indicative of any untruthfulness on his part. 192.With respect to PW9’s evidence that he escaped from the subject vehicle when it was en-route to the scene of crime, I find that his evidence was materially collaborated by PW27 in whose home he sought refuge, PW6 who recorded his abduction report at Kadel Police Post and PW9 who treated him for his injuries. 193.PW27 in his evidence narrated how PW9 stormed into his house out of breath, visibly shaken and in a panic. The fact that his first instinct was to hide under a bed is quite telling. The three witnesses noted that PW9 had fresh injuries which were bleeding. 194.In addition, the description by PW6 and PW10 confirming that PW9 was visibly shaking to an extent that he was trembling when recording his statement and as he was being treated reinforced his evidence that he had just escaped from a life threatening situation. Further, in the course of the trial, he satisfactorily demonstrated to the court how he managed to jump out of the moving vehicle which according to PW38 was being driven at a speed of 60 Km Per hour not 80 Km per hour as alleged by the defence. 195.DW4’s attempt to discredit his evidence on this point dismally failed since he admitted that his expertise was only limited to motor vehicle assessments. He was not an expert on the law of motion and assessment of the nature of injuries that would be sustained by a person who had fallen or jumped from a moving vehicle in the circumstances described by PW9. 196.Having satisfied myself that PW9 and PW38 were in fact truthful and reliable witnesses, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the 2nd accused was present at Graca Hotel and at the nearby Olibya Petrol Station in the company of unidentified men who boarded Motor vehicle Regs. No. KCL 481K joining PW9 and Sharon. There is uncontested evidence that the unidentified men were the culprits who abducted, sexually assaulted and eventually brutally killed the late Sharon. 197.Given the above evidence, I take the view that the meeting at Graca Hotel was not genuinely intended to convey the 1st accused’s message to the deceased and PW9 but was in reality a deliberate entrapment to hand over the deceased to her killers. It formed part of the 2nd accused’s role of operationalizing and ensuring execution of the conspiracy to kill Sharon. 198.Additionally, the above evidence also demonstrated that the 1st accused, though physically absent was aware of the meeting at Graca Hotel since he is the one who had sent the 2nd accused with money to be delivered to Sharon. 199.It can also be reasonably inferred from the conversation the unidentified men initiated when the vehicle was on transit that the men had some linkage to the 1st accused and were actors in his scheme to eliminate Sharon for the reason i identified earlier in this judgement. PW9 and PW38 who I have already found were credible witnesses testified that as the vehicle was on transit, the men questioned Sharon about her relationship with the 1st accused and also questioned PW9 about why he was following up the story about the Governor. 200.Turning now to the alleged involvement of PW9 in the aforesaid scheme, I find that in his defence, the 3rd accused denied having played any role in the killing of the deceased. He stated that he had not had any personal interactions with Sharon and he therefore had no reason to kill her. But he admitted having accompanied the 2nd accused to meetings in which Sharon was involved twice. The first meeting was in a Hotel at Homa Bay Town when the 2nd accused was delivering money to Sharon on behalf of the 1st accused and the second one was at Capital Centre during the Nairobi visit. 201.There is also uncontroverted evidence that the vehicle used in the abduction that culminated in the death of the deceased was owned by Olivia, his second wife. PW39 confirmed in her evidence that Olivia had been given access to the tracking device through letter produced in evidence as P Exhibit 53 (c); and, that between 3rd September 2018 and the morning of 4th September 2018, the tracking device was not working indicating that it was either tempered with or was disabled by failing to load its sim card with airtime or sim card had low signal. 202.It must be remembered that 3rd September 2018 is the day that the late Sharon was killed and it is the same day the vehicle, according to PW38 was taken for alleged valuation by a person whose contacts were provided by the 3rd accused. The fact that the tracking device failed on the very day the vehicle was being used for commission of the offence cannot be a case of mere coincidence. 203.It is pertinent to note that two of the explanations offered by PW39 why the tracker would cease functioning involved deliberate human intervention and it is my finding that the tracking device failed to work on the material day due to tempering traceable to the 3rd accused. It must be remembered that PW39 clarified in her evidence that tempering with the device would not show in the system if the device’s sim card was starved of air time. It is my finding that tempering with the tracking device on the day Sharon was abducted and later killed is conduct consistent with preparation and planning for the offence and its concealment. 204.The prosecution also adduced evidence to prove that on 4th September 2018, a day after the offence was committed, the 3rd accused introduced the 2nd accused to PW22 requesting him to procure fake medical records indicating that the 2nd accused had sustained injuries during an alleged kidnapping on the previous night at Kisii; that pursuant to his request, PW20 fabricated the fake medical records in the 2nd accused’s name purporting them to have been issued at the KTRH. 205.It is apparent that the above fabricated medical reports were meant to support a false report made by the 2nd accused on the same day at Uriri Police Station to PW23 claiming that he had been abducted by unknown people on the previous evening in the course of which he had been beaten and robbed. 206.Though both the 2nd and 3rd accused persons denied having requested PW22 for procurement of the false medical records, they failed to explain how the said documents bore the 2nd accused’s name and personal details. Importantly, the 2nd accused did not disown those details. 207.The submissions by the two accused persons impugning PW22’s evidence on grounds that he had handed over the documents to the 2nd accused at around mid day whereas there was evidence that the 2nd accused was already at Uriri Police Station at that time are in my view and with respect to counsel, misplaced. The submissions appear to be based on a misapprehension of PW22’s evidence. PW22 clearly stated in his evidence that he handed over the fake medical records to the 3rd accused on instructions by the 2nd accused. He did not say that he handed over the documents to the 2nd accused. 208.In my view, denials by the 2nd and 3rd accused persons of involvement in the procurement of the forged medical records amounted to an afterthought which did not affect the veracity of the two prosecution witnesses. PW20 and PW22 were independent witnesses in this case and they had no reason to fabricate or give false evidence against the two accused persons. 209.That said, I agree with the 2nd accused that PW42’s claim that he collected the fake medical reports at Uriri Police Station in the course of his investigations after the 2nd accused presented them while making report of his alleged abduction cannot be true as the claim is not supported by the rest of the evidence on record. The claim also flies in the face of the letter dated 13th June 2022 (DExhibit 4) in which the investigating team was giving the 2nd accused a notice, through his advocates, to produce original copies of the same documents. 210.From a totality of the above evidence, it is clear that the 3rd accused was not a passive bystander but was an active participant in the events that resulted in Sharon’s death. His conduct of assisting the 2nd accused to invent a false alibi to cover his tracks on the night Sharon was unlawfully killed was evidence that he deliberately sought to obstruct the course of justice and was incompatible with his innocence. 211.It is also noteworthy that although the 3rd accused testified that he did not report directly to the 1st accused in the course of his duties, the call data records produced by PW40 in respect of the 1st accused’s mobile Number 072xxxx587 ( Exhibit 64) shows that in the two days between 2nd and 3rd September 2018, the 1st accused made a total of five (5) calls to the 3rd accused. Two calls were made on 2nd September 2018 while three calls were made on 3rd September 2018. The 3rd accused also called the 1st accused on the following day 4th September 2018 at 7.31 am. 212.The number of these calls and the fact that they were made a day before, on the date the offence was committed and on the following day gives rise to a reasonable inference that the calls were made for purposes of coordination and planning of events that resulted into the deceased’s death. 213.The content and purpose of those calls were matters within the special knowledge of both the 1st and the 3rd accused persons and under Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof shifted to them to explain the reasons the calls were made or the purpose of their communication. For the avoidance of doubt, Section 111 (1) of the Evidence Act provides as follows;“when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any exception or exemption from or qualification to, the operation of the law creating the offence with which he is charged and the burden of proving of any fact especially within the knowledge of such person is upon him…” 214.In this case, the 1st and 3rd accused persons did not explain the purpose and content of their communication on the above three critical days and they therefore failed to discharge their burden of proving that the calls related to innocent communication that had nothing to do with preparation and planning for the commission of the offence. 215.Having carefully appraised the evidence on record in its entirety, it is clear to me that the evidence demonstrated that the accused persons acted in concert jointly with others not before the court pursuant to a common design, each performing a distinct role in furtherance of a criminal enterprise that resulted in the death of the deceased. 216.To summarize, the 1st accused supplied motive, instigation and funds to finance the criminal enterprise; the 2nd accused operationalized and facilitated its execution while the 3rd accused ensured logistical support and concealment to avoid detection of the offence. Inherent in these roles were acts of preparation, participation, planning and concealment which denoted knowledge, premeditation and intention to execute a scheme designed to cause the death of Sharon. These acts put together constituted malice aforethought as defined in Section 206 of the Penal code. 217.The fact that the 1st accused was not in Migori County at the time the offence was committed but was in Nairobi as stated in his alibi which is supported by the evidence on record does not shield him from criminal culpability since under the doctrine of common intention, criminal liability does not depend on who physically commits the actus reus but whether the accused acted in concert with others to execute a common intention designed to achieve an unlawful purpose. 218.Applying the legal principles governing the application of circumstantial evidence to the present case, I am satisfied that the circumstances presented in this case, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused persons, jointly with others not before the court, committed the offence charged. I am satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case irresistibly points to the guilt of the accused persons as charged. 219.In the premises, it is my finding that the prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused persons, jointly with others not before the court and with malice aforethought, caused the death of the deceased, Sharon Belyne Otieno. 220.I consequently find the 1st accused, Zacharia Okoth Obado; the 2nd accused, Michael Juma Oyamo and the 3rd accused, Caspal Ojwang Obiero guilty of the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 of the Penal Code as charged in Count 1. Each accused person is accordingly convicted of the offence under Section 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 2026.C. W. GITHUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Each accused person.Ms. Timui; Ms.Kigira and Ms. Maina for holding brief for Ms. Gikui Gichuhi for the StateMr. Hezekiah Awour;Ms. Brenda Ayamba; Ms. Leticia Mwaura for the victims familyMr. Kilukumi SC; Mr. Rodgers Sagana and Ms. Mwanza for the 1st AccusedMr. Oganda Messo for the 2nd AccusedMr. Jack Oronga for the 3rd Accused