https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11046

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CRIMINAL DIVISION** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8 OF 2020** **REPUBLIC…………………………………..…………………………..……..PROSECUTOR** **VERSUS** **DUNCAN ODHIAMBO SINDENG alias DAN ………….…………….…..1ST ACCUSED** **JOHN MWANGI WANJIRU alias JONTE……………….…..………..….2ND ACCUSED** **AARON MWARARI WANJIKU alias MWARARI…….………………….3RD ACCUSED** **JOHN MUNGAI WAITHERA alias MUNGA…………….….…………….4TH ACCUSED** **MOSES NGARI MWANGI alias KABARIDI…………………….……….5TH ACCUSED** **JUDGMENT** 1. A vicious turf war between two rival groups over control of rights to off-load sand at a construction site in Kipawa Estate, Nairobi ended in a tragic death. 2. On 7th October 2019,a contractor known as *Charles Njihia Mwangi* (PW4), ordered for sand to be delivered to a site in Kamulu. The lorry arrived with three loaders atop it. One of the men aboard the truck was *Isaac Ochieng Awuor* (hereafter *the deceased*). 3. Suddenly, a group of young men riding on *bodabodas* approached the lorry armed with *rungus*, spades or metal bars. PW4 said one jumped on top of the lorry and hit the deceased on the head and he fell. According to another witness, *Joshua Owino Ojwok* (PW1) the assailants included the five accused persons. 4. The Director of Public Prosecutions (hereafter *the DPP*) thus charged the accused with *murder* contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the **Penal Code**. 5. The particulars are that on the 7th October 2019 at Kipawa Estate Area, Njiru Sub-County, within Nairobi County jointly with others not before the court, they murdered the deceased. 6. The prosecution called eleven witnesses. PW1 testified that on the material day he was in the company of the deceased and PW2 at Kipawa scouting for work to off-load building materials. A driver approached them and ferried them to a site at Kanisani Road, Kipawa. As they off-loaded sand, *“about 10 people came in 5 boda-bodas. They started attacking [them] with spades, rungus and metal bars. They were insisting that the driver pays them”.* 7. PW1 scampered for safety. He claimed that all the accused together with *Morris, Kababa, Obega* and *Katoli* were chasing them. He hid in a school until the proprietor summoned him back to rescue the deceased. He found the deceased lying on the ground with blood oozing from behind the head. 8. Like I stated earlier, PW4 is a contractor. The lorry driven by one *Gatua* arrived with three loaders atop it. His evidence went as follows- *A group of* *twenty young men approached with rungus and spades….**one jumped on top of the lorry and hit one of the three who were on top of the lorry. He was hit on the head and fell.* 1. PW4 did not identify any of the accused. But according to PW1 there were ten or so attackers armed with spades, *rungus* and a metal bar. 2. *Boniface Ouma Omolo* (PW2) stated that the accused together with others not before the court *“walked towards us carrying spades, metal bars and rungus. Jonte (2nd accused) came into the top of the lorry and found [deceased] and hit him with a piece of metal”.* PW2 ran away towards another building 20 metres or so away and hid on the 3rd floor. When he returned to the scene, the deceased had already been taken to the hospital. 3. It is not lost on me that this witness made three statements to the police dated 10/10/2019, 3/8/2020 and 26/7/2022. He also contradicted PW1 who had said the attackers rode to the scene on motorbikes. He also conceded that as he ran away, he could not clearly see what was happening behind the lorry. 4. However, the witness clarified that whereas he could not see what was going on at the back of the lorry, he *“originally saw Jonte, Dan, Kabaridi, Mwirari, Kabachi (not an accused) Morris (not an accused) and Munga beating up deceased with spades, rungus and metal bars. They beat him for about 5 minutes”.* 5. PW1 together with *Levelent Soge Makori* (PW6) and other members of the public assisted the deceased. He was in a poor state and could not speak. He was first taken to Family Hospital Ruai and later transferred to Kenyatta National Hospital where he died. 6. The deceased’s wife, *Mary Adhiambo* (PW3) identified his remains at the City Mortuary. On 17th October 2019, an autopsy was conducted by *Dr. Bernard Midia* (PW11). The post mortem form (exhibit 8) shows that the cause of death was *“head injury due to blunt force trauma”.* 7. There were then a series of police identification parades conducted on 24th December 2019 and 3rd August 2020 by C.I.P *Peter Ireri Nyaga* (PW5); and, by C.I.P John Mwirigi (PW7) on 26th July 2022 where the accused persons were identified by PW1 and PW2 (exhibits 1 to 7). I will return to that subject later. 8. PW8 was *Joseph Mutuku*, the chairman of “Watu wa Mchanga” where the deceased was working. PW8 also knew the 1st and 4th accused. He said the 1st accused left Kamulu Group and joined Group 26. He testified that territorial conflicts arose the two groups. 9. The accused were all arrested over a period of time. For instance, on 24th December 2019, PW8 got a tip that the 1st accused was spotted at a football field. PW8 and members of the group went there, arrested him and handed him over to Kamulu Police Station. On 25th July 2020 P.C. *Hussein Gunar* (PW9) was on patrol duties at Kamulu Police Station. He arrested the 2nd accused and booked him at the station. 10. P.C. *Michael Mbugua* (PW10) was the investigating officer. He took over the matter on 26.1.2020 from C.I.P. *Nyagah* and P.C. *Japhett munene*. He gave a general summary of the investigations that led to the arrest and prosecution of the accused persons. 11. When all the accused were placed on their defence, they denied assaulting or killing the deceased. As I shall discuss shortly, they also raised *alibis* distancing themselves from the *locus in quo*. 12. The substance of the defence by the 1st accused was that on the material date he was working as a mason at a construction site at Ng'ondo/Nundu area in Kamulu, from about 7:30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.; and, that he never left the premises. When he was recalled to the stand, he denied that he was in Kipawa or Naivasha. He called two witnesses, *Shadrack Ford* (DW6) and *Jared Ooko Ondira* (DW7) who all confirmed that the three were all together at the Kamulu site from morning until they closed for the day at about 5:00 p.m. 13. The 2nd accused (DW2) testified on oath. He admitted that he was at the scene but denied assaulting the deceased. He said that the deceased was his friend. But under cross examination, he was at a loss why he never went to the police. He admitted he carried a spade onto the lorry but refuted the evidence of PW1 and PW2. On the contrary, he claimed that it is PW2 who cut the deceased with a spade. He also said that he did not know any of his co-accused. 14. The material part of his evidence was as follows- *On 7.10.2019 I left my house at Kanisani. I found* *a lorry carrying my friends, Isaac, Joshua & Ouma. I had worked with them for some time. I followed the vehicle and asked for work. There were many people at site. They asked us to offload the sand or get out. I was standing between Ouma & Isaac. Ouma used a spade to cut Isaac. I left Isaac bleeding. I ran back to where I used to work. I don’t know what happened after that.* 1. The 3rd accused (DW3) testified that on the material date and time, he was working as a *fundi* at a construction site. He said he was arrested on 14/7/2022 and booked on 15/7/2022. His line of defence was that he was arrested with many other persons for unrelated offences and taken to Kamulu Police Station. He spent the night there. The following day, an officer told him he had killed someone. He said that he did not know the deceased, PW1, PW2 or the other accused persons. 2. When the 3rd accused was recalled to the stand, he said he lived in Ruai before and worked at Sewage as a sand harvester or loader. He however denied being at the scene of the murder. He said that at the police parade, PW1 and PW2 identified him as “Kabaridi” which is not his name. He however conceded he never challenged the witnesses in cross-examination that he was in Githunguri. He insisted that he was arrested for assault and not murder. 3. The 4th accused (DW4) denied that he is also known as *Munga*. He said the name was a creature of the police. On 7/10/2019, he was at Ruai Junction on his normal duties of a *bodaboda* on motor cycle registration number KMDH 703H . He denied that he was a “sand loader”. He said the deceased or PW2 were strangers to him and that when he was arrested on 14/7/2022, it was in relation to an assault. He added that at the time he was arrested, he was with the 3rd accused and did not know the other accused persons. 4. The 5th accused (DW5) testified that he is also known as “Kabaridi”. But he denied the allegations by PW1 that he is also known as “Mwiraria”. He said that on 7/10/2019 he was a “Kamagera” (matatu stage loader) and stayed there the whole day. He stated that on 14th July 2022 he got a lift on a lorry. They were flagged down and arrested by the police. He found the 3rd and 4th accused in the lorry. At the station he was informed that he was wanted for an “assault, touting etc.”. He came to learn of the present charge during the Miscellaneous Criminal Application in the lower court. 5. But under cross examination, he conceded that he would sometimes get work at construction sites but not that of offloading sand. He also denied knowledge of any conflicts between different groups of sand loaders or harvesters. He said that he did not know PW1 or PW2. 6. Learned counsel for all the accused have filed final submissions. The 1st accused lodged detailed submissions dated 21st April 2026 together with a list of authorities. The 2nd accused’s submissions are also dated 21st April 2026 while those for the 3rd accused are dated 28th April 2025.. The submissions by the 4th accused are dated 15th April 2025. The dates in the submissions by the 3rd and 4th accused are misleading. Considering that this trial closed on 18th March 2026, I believe the correct date is in the year 2026. Lastly, the submissions by the 5th accused are dated 20th April 2026. 7. The sum total of all those submissions is that whereas the death of the deceased is not in doubt, the circumstances that led to his demise or the connection with the accused were not proved. In particular, they submitted that the witnesses failed to positively identify the accused or to establish any clear link between the accused and the attack upon the deceased. 8. Furthermore, the evidence is challenged for being contradictory, sketchy and failing to pinpoint which of the accused persons were involved or the kind of weapons employed. Were they spades, *rungus* or a metal bar; and, why were they not produced in evidence? Could the deceased have been injured from a fall from the lorry? Furthermore, counsel submitted that there was no clear reason why the five accused persons were singled out for prosecution. 9. In addition, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons raised *alibis* that on the material date and time, they were not at the scene of the murder. As I will discuss later, the 2nd accused admitted he was at the scene but stunningly claimed that the person who hit the deceased on the head was *Boniface Ouma Omolo* (PW2). 10. In a synopsis, the defence contends that the evidence does not meet the required standard of proof; and, accordingly, the accused should be acquitted.Reliance was made on a number of precedents including ***Kiarie v Republic*** [1984] KLR, ***Erick Otieno Meda v Republic***, Kisumu Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal 55 of 2015, ***Woolmington v DPP*** [1935] AC 462, ***R v Kipkering arap Koske & another*** 16 EACA 135 (1949), **Bhatt v Republic** [1957] E.A. 332,***Republic v Abdi Ibrahim Owi***, Garissa High Court Criminal Case 6 of 2011 [2013] eKLR, ***Republic v Juma Kituko Mwambegu***, Malindi High Court Criminal Case 12 of 2018 [2020] eKLR and ***Wamunga v Republic*** [1989] KLR 424. 11. I will refer later to *some* of these precedents in the course of this judgment. 12. By dint of section 161 of the **Criminal Procedure Code**, I directed that the republic could *only* lodge a reply to the submissions by the 1st accused who had called witnesses in his defence. The submissions by the republic are dated 23rd April 2026. According to the learned prosecution counsel, there is overwhelming evidence connecting all the accused to the murder. In addition, the DPP submitted that the *alibi* by the 1st accused was phantom and an afterthought. 13. My findings are as follows. The burden of proof that the accused murdered the deceased lay squarely with the Republic. ***Woolmington v DPP*** [1935] AC 462, ***Bhatt v Republic*** [1957] E.A. 332. 14. Section 203 of the **Penal Code** provides that *any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder*. 15. There are *four* key ingredients that *must* be present: first, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the *death* of the deceased; and, secondly, the *cause* of that death; thirdly, that the accused *committed* the unlawful act that led to the death; and, fourthly, that the accused was *of* *malice aforethought*. 16. The death of the deceased is *no* longer in doubt. His wife, *Mary Adhiambo* (PW3) identified the body at the City Mortuary. On 17th October 2019, the postmortem was conducted by *Dr. Bernard Midia* (PW11). According to the pathologist, the cause of death was *“head injury due to blunt force trauma”.* 17. I thus readily find that the death was *unlawful*. The next question then is whether the Republic proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, *of malice aforethought*, killed the deceased. 18. This question is closely intertwined with whether the accused were positively identified at the scene of the murder. The eye-witnesses to the attack were PW1, PW2 and PW4. However, PW4 did *not* recognize any of the attackers. PW1 knew the accused persons for about five years. He stated as follows in examination in chief: “*A2 and A1 and A4 and A5 and A3 were chasing us*”. In cross examination he stated that he saw the attackers who were 20 metres or 30 metres away. 19. PW2 also knew the accused persons for years. He stated as follows- *Jonte (A2) and other people (about 20) walked towards us carrying spades, metal bars and rungus.* *Jonte (A2) came into the top of the lorry and found Isaac and hit him with a piece of metal. The three of us stepped off the vehicle and ran away towards another building 20 metres away. I hid on the 3rd floor. I could not see what was going back at the lorry. But originally I saw Jonte, Dan, Kabaridi, Mwirari, Kabachi (not an accused) Morris (not an accused) and Munga beating up deceased with spades, rungus and metal bars. They beat him for about 5 minutes.* 1. The fracas occurred during broad daylight. PW1 and PW2 knew the accused persons well before the incident. I thus find that the accused persons were positively identified. It was in fact evidence of *recognition*. See generally ***Wamunga v Republic*** [1989] KLR 424; ***Maitanyi v Republic*** [1986] KLR 198 at 201. 2. In light of my conclusions above, I find that the police identification parades conducted by PW5 and PW7 were *redundant*. PW1 testified that he had known *all* the accused for over *three* or *five years*. PW2 equally knew some of the accused for well over *one or two years*. These witnesses claimed to have *seen* the accused the scene. 3. I am fortified from the evidence of PW1 on this aspect- *I saw accused 1 next after 2 months. I was called at “Kiwanja” at Kamulu and we arrested him. We got “A2” with police at a placed called “sewage’ in Kamulu. Accused 3 was arrested after more than a year. Same as Accused 4 & Accused 5. The latter three were arrested in the course of another incident. I identified them in a police parade. I knew all the 5 accused for about 5 years.* 1. For PW1 and PW2 to then be summoned to a police parade to *identify* the accused defeats all logic and punctures the entire exercise. In the upshot, the two parades conducted on 24th December 2019 and 3rd August 2020 by C.I.P *Peter Ireri Nyaga* (PW5) as well as that by C.I.P *John Mwirigi* (PW7) on 26th July 2022 were all of little or no probative value. 2. Returning to the issue of identification, PW1 testified that he saw the five accused persons and others including *Morris, Kababa, Obega* and *Katoli*. He scampered for safety and hid in a school until the coast was clear. I am not confident that as he fled for dear life he saw *exactly* who *hit* the deceased. I am fortified in that finding because when he was cross examined by *Ms. Odero* he conceded that the fight started when he and the deceased were on top of the lorry and that he never saw who bludgeoned the deceased. 3. I agree with the submissions by the learned defence counsel that there are some discrepancies between the evidence of some witnesses. For instance, PW1 and PW2 contradicted themselves on the number of attackers or whether they all travelled to the scene on motorbikes or even the number of the two-wheelers. Another departure was whether the deceased was hit with a metal rod or a spade. It is instructive that the weapons were not produced. But I find that all those inconsistencies were *immaterial*. 4. Furthermore, in any trial with multiple witnesses, there are bound to be such discrepancies. See generally, ***Joseph Maina Mwangi v Republic***, Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1993. 5. I will now turn to the *alibis* set up by the 1st, 3rd , 4th and 5th accused persons. An *alibi* never shifts the burden of proof to the accused; it is sufficient if it introduces a *reasonable possibility* of truth. ***Kiarie v Republic*** [1984] KLR; ***Wang'ombe v Republic*** [1980] KLR 149, Vol 1 [1976-1980] 1683. 6. However, the weight to be attached to the *alibi* is affected by two important elements: (a) how early it was raised and whether the prosecution had a fair opportunity to test it; and, (b) whether it is corroborated by independent testimony. See generally ***Erick Otieno Meda v Republic***, Kisumu Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal 55 of 2015. See also ***Republic v Johnson*** [1961] 3 ALL E.R. 969, ***Saidi Mwakawanga v Republic*** [1963] E.A. 6 7. In the instant case, it is *not* entirely true as claimed by the DPP that the 1st accused *first* raised his *alibi* after the close of the prosecution’s case. In the cross examination, he pointed to his statement with the police indicating that he was working at another site with a *fundi* named *Justus* and the site at *Ngundu* near *Kwa Makanga*. I have also *weighed* the *alibi* against the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4.The prosecution’s case is that PW1 and PW2 both knew the 1st accused and identified him at the police parade. I have already found that the police parades were *superfluous*. 8. Generally speaking, an *alibi* raised at the earliest opportunity carries materially more weight than one sprung out at the defence hearing: ***Wang'ombe v Republic*** [1980] KLR 149. The *alibi* by the 1st accused is supported by two independent witnesses, DW6 and DW7. Whereas their accounts are not identical in every respect (there is a discrepancy over the head-count of *fundis* present and the precise time in the morning that they got to the site) I find the inconsistences to be peripheral. In my view, and when taken in their totality, they tend to support rather than undermine authenticity of their claims. 9. It is equally not lost on me that the republic stood down the 1st and 3rd accused in order to call evidence in rebuttal*.* Learned Principal Prosecution Counsel, *Ms. Kigira*, indicated on 16th July 2025 that the republic would rely on Safaricom call data. Despite being granted a number of extensions, learned counsel informed the court on 18th March 2026 that she would not be calling any evidence in rebuttal stating that *“upon further consideration and the delays in getting call data, I will not be doing so. I will be proceeding to cross-examine as appropriate”* 10. The net effect is that the Court must now weigh the *alibis* against the totality of the prosecution’s identifying or eye-witnesses but without in any way shifting the burden of proof to the accused. ***Kiarie v Republic*** [supra]; ***Wang'ombe v Republic*** [supra]. 11. From my detailed analysis of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 above, I readily find that the *alibi* by the 1st accused is probable and raises reasonable doubt that he was at the scene of the murder. I thus enter a finding of *not guilty* against the 1st accused (*Duncan Odhiambo Sideng* alias *Dan*) and he is hereby *acquitted*. 12. I will now turn to the 2nd accused’s defence. His principal answer is that he is not the one who attacked the deceased; rather that it was *Boniface Ouma* (PW2) who struck the deceased with a spade on the head. He thus freely admitted that he was at the scene with the deceased, PW1 and PW2. 13. But I find his version of events to be a blatant falsehood. He testified that he saw “*a lorry carrying my friends, Isaac [deceased], Joshua and Ouma. I had worked with them for some time. I followed the vehicle and asked for work…”.* That can only mean that when the lorry arrived at the scene only the deceased, PW1 and PW2 were atop it. The rival group then arrived. PW2 could thus *not* have been in the group of assailants. 14. The person who attacked the deceased climbed onto the lorry and hit the deceased with a spade or piece of metal on the head. That person was clearly identified by PW2 as the 2nd accused. PW2 testified clearly that *“Jonte (A2) came into the top of the lorry and found Isaac and hit him with a piece of metal”.* This version is well corroborated by PW4 who despite not knowing the 2nd accused or identifying him in particular stated that “*one jumped on top of the lorry and hit one of the three who were on top of the lorry. He was hit on the head and fell”.* 15. I thus entertain no doubt that it is the 2nd accused who climbed atop the truck and fatally assaulted the deceased. He had the *intention* of causing death for two reasons. Firstly, he deliberately and through all means sought to take over the job of off-loading sand from the deceased and his two colleagues; and, secondly, he went directly to where the deceased stood atop the lorry and used a spade or metallic object to hit him on the back of the head. 16. The 2nd accused thus knew or ought to have known that the force was capable of causing grievous harm or death. He thus had *malice aforethought* as defined in section 206 (b) of the **Penal Code**. 17. The 3rd accused also raised an *alibi* as follows: That on the material day, his brother in law *Comos Muema* invited him to do some work in Githunguri, Utawala. Firstly, this *alibi* was raised well after the close of the prosecution’s case. Secondly, whereas he informed the court that his *“brother would be his witness”,* the accused opted, as he was so entitled, not to call him. Thirdly, upon his recall for further cross-examination he seemed to partly concede that the *alibi* was an afterthought. When weighed against the totality of the prosecution’s evidence, I find that the 3rd accused was one of the assailants at the scene and that his belated *alibi* is gibberish. 18. Considering the evidence of identification by PW1 and PW2 that I set out earlier in great detail, I equally find that the 4th accused was positively identified at the scene of the murder. His feigned claim that he was at the material time and hour working as a *bodaboda* rider at Ruai Junction, some 6 to 8 kms away; or, that he was not a sand-loader are red herrings. 19. For the same reasons, I find that the *alibi* set up by the 5th accused is a falsehood. He claimed that he was working as a "kamagera" at Ruai stage that day, and had never heard of the deceased. But the claim cannot stand in the face of the very specific identification and recognition by PW1 and PW2. He could not have been in two places at the same time. 20. In conclusion, I have weighed the claims by the 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons against the consistent evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW2 in particular knew all of them for years. He stated in cross examination by learned counsel for the 4th accused as follows- *I saw Morris, Kabach, Ombega and the 5 accused here. Morris, Kabach and Ombega are not here in court. Jonte, Dan, Kabaridi, Munga were chasing deceased. I knew all of them for nearly 2 years. Munga is 4th accused. I knew him for the same period. Munga had a spade and rungu. The weapons are not in court. Munga hit deceased with the rungu. 7 people had rungus, 4 had spades. Jonte and Dan had metal bars. Deceased fell immediately after jumping from the lorry. Then Jonte reached him. I looked back and saw him being attacked. Jonte hit the deceased with a metal bar again when he fell.* 1. In the final analysis, I find that the 2nd, 3rd , 4th and 5th accused persons *jointly* killed the deceased. They acted in *concert* and with a *common* intention to cause him grievous harm or even death. Furthermore, the assailants were armed with spades, *rungus* and metal bars. They attackers were anywhere between 10 and 20 people and clearly *outnumbered* the three men atop the sand lorry. They inflicted life-threatening injuries on the deceased when he was initially on top of the lorry and when he fell off. The accused persons then went underground. 2. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons thus *knew or ought to have known* that it was likely to cause grievous harm or death. I thus find that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused had *malice aforethought* as defined in section 206 (b) of the **Penal Code**. From the nature of injuries and all the surrounding circumstances, it is also clear that the death was *premeditated*. 3. The conduct of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons is *inconsistent* with their plea of innocence or their counterfeit *alibis*. The deceased died as a direct *consequence* of their unlawful conduct. The entire corpus of direct, circumstantial and documentary evidence points *irresistibly* to their guilt. 4. My final orders are as follows- 5. That the prosecution has *proved* *beyond reasonable doubt* that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons, *of malice aforethought,* caused the death of the deceased by an *unlawful* act*.* I accordingly enter a finding of *guilty* and *convict* the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons of *murder* contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the **Penal Code**. 6. That that prosecution has *failed* to prove *beyond reasonable doubt* the charge of *murder* brought against the 1st accused. Accordingly, I enter a finding of *not guilty* against the 1st accused (*Duncan Odhiambo Sideng* alias *Dan*) and he is hereby *acquitted*. He shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** at **NAIROBI** this21st day of July 2026. **KANYI KIMONDO** **JUDGE** **Judgment read virtually on *Microsoft Teams* in the presence of-** The accused. Ms. Kigira for the Republic instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Ms. Odero for the 1st accused instructed by Odero & Associates Advocates. Mr. Onyari for the 2nd accused instructed by E. M. Onyari & Company Advocates. Mr. Macharia for the 4th accused instructed by Macharia, Gaitho & Murigu Advocates LLP. Ms. Ms. Gandi holding brief for Ms. Masaki for the 5th accused instructed by Masaki, Omaiyio & Gathu Advocates LLP. Mr. E. Ombuna, Court Assistant.