https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11207

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT KENYA AT BUNGOMA** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13 OF 2024** **REPUBLIC………………………………….………………PROSECUTOR** **-V/S-** **MARTIN WEKESA WANYONYI………………………………ACCUSED** **JUDGMENT** 1. Martin Wekesa Wanyonyi, the accused person ( accused) faces a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read together with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on the night of 14th February 2024 at Sitabicha Village, Bokoli Location, in Webuye West South Sub-County within Bungoma County the accused murdered Franklin Makali Wanyonyi. 2. The prosecution called 8 witnesses to support its case. The accused gave a sworn statement in his defence. **PROSECUTION CASE** 1. PW1, Sarah Nakumicha Wanyonyi, the mother of both the deceased and the accused, testified that on the night of 14th February 2024 at 8.00pm, the deceased came to her house to collect the kitchen keys to get food. Before he reached the kitchen, she heard someone repeatedly call “Martin”, followed by three blows. Upon going outside, she found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from the ears and nose. She further testified that she saw the accused, Martin, standing about one meter from the deceased, holding a steel axe head ‘chuma’. According to her, he pointed at her, said the word “wewe”, briefly returned to his house, padlocked it, and left with the weapon. She raised an alarm, which attracted neighbours and the police. Although the accused’s house was later burnt by members of the public, the alleged murder weapon was never recovered. 2. PW1 further testified that the following day she learnt that the accused had gone to his sister Mildred’s home, where he claimed robbers had killed the deceased. Mildred’s husband alerted the police, leading to the accused’s arrest. She identified the accused as her biological son and stated that they had previously had a good relationship, though he had become hostile towards her. She further testified that the accused had previously been charged with killing another of her sons and that he had fled to Matili after the incident. 3. She testified that she had personally witnessed the accused strike the deceased three times on the head before leaving the scene. She attributed the attack to an ongoing land dispute between the accused and the deceased, stating that the accused had repeatedly demanded a share of the deceased’s land. She added that the accused later attempted to blame robbers for the assault. 4. During cross-examination, PW1 gave evidence that she heard the deceased call out the accused’s name before she went outside and found the accused assaulting the deceased. She further gave evidence that the deceased was bleeding and that, when she screamed for help, the accused chased her, forcing her to flee until neighbours arrived. 5. She denied that unknown persons had entered the compound or attacked the deceased, insisting that only the accused was present and that she clearly saw him assault the deceased with a steel axe head from about four meters away. She further testified that there was sufficient light, aided by her torch, which enabled her to identify the accused and his clothing. 6. PW1 rejected the accused’s claim that robbers had attacked them, stating that if he had been innocent, he would have stayed at the scene and reported the incident rather than fleeing. She reiterated that she had personally witnessed him beating the deceased and maintained that he was solely responsible for the deceased’s death. 7. On re-examination, PW1 reiterated that the deceased had been calling out the accused’s name before the assault. She testified that when she went outside, she saw the accused walking away after attacking the deceased. She stated that the accused had pointed at her and said “wewe” before falsely claiming that robbers had attacked the deceased. 8. She further reiterated that the accused and the deceased had a strained relationship stemming from land disputes, and maintained that the accused’s conduct after the incident, including fleeing the scene, was inconsistent with his claim that robbers were responsible. She added that although no property was stolen from her, members of the public later took some of the accused’s belongings after breaking into and burning his house. 9. PW2, Benson Namianywa Wanyonyi, testified that the accused and the deceased were his brothers. He stated that on the night of 14th February 2024, he heard Sarah Nakhumicha screaming for help and rushed to her homestead, where he found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from the ear, mouth and nose. Sarah informed him that the accused had assaulted the deceased. PW2 sought transport to take the deceased to hospital, but after failing to secure a vehicle, he reported the incident to Bokoli Police Post. He later returned to the scene with police officers, who confirmed the deceased had died and arranged for the body to be taken to the mortuary. 10. PW2 testified that he did not see the accused at the scene because the accused had already fled. He stated that although there was no electricity, visibility was aided by the torch on his mobile phone and by Sarah’s rechargeable solar lamp. He further testified that the accused and the deceased had a strained relationship stemming from a land dispute, as the accused had refused to occupy his allocated portion of land and instead remained on the deceased’s portion. He added that he had no grudge against the accused. 11. During cross-examination, PW2 acknowledged that he had not witnessed the assault and therefore could not say how the deceased sustained his injuries. However, he maintained that the dispute between the accused and the deceased concerned the deceased’s land and confirmed that the title deed was still in their late father’s name. 12. On re-examination, PW2 clarified that although succession had not been completed and the title had not been transferred, each family member had already been allocated a specific portion of the land by their late father, and the deceased occupied the portion assigned to him. 13. PW3, Jeremiah Makali Wanyonyi, testified that the accused and the deceased were his brothers, each from a different mother, and that they all lived on the same family land, with the accused residing in the same homestead as the deceased and their mother. On the night of 14th February 2024, he heard screams from Sarah Wanyonyi’s homestead and, together with a neighbour, went to the scene. He found Sarah crying and crawling on the ground, and she told him that the accused had killed the deceased. PW3 found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from the head and nose. Although he suggested taking him to hospital, Sarah told him he was already dead. He later returned to the scene with the village elder and found police officers present, who confirmed the deceased’s death and removed the body. The following day, he recorded a statement with the police and learnt that the accused had been arrested. 14. PW3 further testified that visibility at the scene was aided by mobile phone torches and rechargeable solar lamps. He stated that the family land had been subdivided after their father’s death, with each member allocated a specific portion. However, the accused continued to occupy the portion allocated to the deceased rather than his own. He stated that although he had never quarrelled with the accused, the accused and the deceased had a strained relationship and frequently fought over the land, as the deceased repeatedly asked the accused to move to his allocated portion. He also stated that while the accused generally behaved normally, some of his actions appeared abnormal. He acknowledged that he did not see the accused on the night of the incident. 15. During cross-examination, PW3 confirmed that he responded to the screams but did not find the accused at the scene. He admitted that he did not witness the assault and therefore could not say how the deceased came to be lying on the ground. He maintained that his evidence was limited to what he personally observed on arrival at the scene. 16. PW4, Abdulahi Masai Kundu, the village elder of Bokoli Sub-location, testified that on the night of 14th February 2024, he was called by Jeremiah Makali to the deceased’s homestead, where he found the deceased lying on the ground, already dead. He notified the Area Assistant Chief, the Nyumba Kumi Initiative and Bokoli Police Post. Police officers arrived at the scene and later arranged for the removal of the deceased’s body. PW4 stated that the deceased’s mother informed him that she had witnessed the accused assault the deceased with a weapon, although he acknowledged that he did not personally see the accused at the scene. 17. PW4 further testified that he was familiar with the family and had witnessed the subdivision of their land. He stated that although the accused had his own allocated portion, he continued to occupy the deceased’s land, leading to frequent disputes between the two brothers. He recalled handling complaints about the land dispute and instances in which police intervened to prevent physical confrontations. According to him, the accused had demanded compensation from the deceased before vacating the land. 18. PW4 also testified that, in his opinion, the accused was of sound mental health. He stated that the accused had previously been involved in violent incidents against family members, including allegations of killing one brother, assaulting another, and attacking their father. He maintained that he bore no grudge against the accused. 19. During cross-examination, PW4 confirmed that he did not witness the incident and learnt of the alleged assault only from Sarah Wanyonyi and Jeremiah Makali. He nevertheless maintained that the accused was mentally normal, despite the accused's alleged history of violent conduct, and denied any personal animosity towards him. 20. On re-examination, PW4 reiterated that the accused had a history of violence against his family members, including allegedly attacking his father, killing the deceased, and assaulting another brother. He stated that these incidents informed his opinion of the accused's character. 21. PW5, P.C Dominic Masenga, the investigating officer, testified that on the night of 14th February 2024, he and a colleague responded to a report of a murder at Bokoli. Upon arriving at Sarah Nakhumicha Wanyonyi’s homestead, they found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from the head, left ear and nose. Sarah informed them that the accused, Martin Wekesa Wanyonyi, had fatally assaulted the deceased and fled the scene. PW5 stated that they processed the scene, removed the body to the Webuye County Hospital Mortuary, and commenced investigations. 22. He further testified that the accused was arrested the following day at his sister Mildred Muliro’s home in Kimilili after fleeing the scene. The accused was transferred to Webuye Police Station, presented before court for custodial orders, and later escorted for mental assessment, where he was found fit to stand trial. PW5 stated that the post-mortem examination established that the deceased died from profuse bleeding caused by blunt-force trauma. Upon completing the investigation, he forwarded the file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which directed that the accused be charged. 23. PW5 testified that witness statements indicated the accused and the deceased had a misunderstanding stemming from a grudge. According to information from the deceased’s mother, the deceased had gone to collect food from her house when the accused allegedly attacked him from behind with a metal bar, which was never recovered. He added that the accused’s flight to Kimilili after the incident was consistent with consciousness of guilt. He also explained that the crime scene had been compromised by the time the police arrived, as a large crowd had gathered and the accused’s house had already been burnt. 24. During cross-examination, PW5 acknowledged that the scene was crowded when the police arrived and that no witness had seen the deceased being served food through the window. He also confirmed that although the accused had previously been charged in another criminal case, he had not been convicted. He further acknowledged that several prosecution witnesses were family members of the accused but stated that he could not conclude that they were actuated by a grudge. He maintained that the accused had fled to his sister’s home rather than merely visiting her, and reiterated that the accused had been certified as mentally fit to stand trial. 25. On re-examination, PW5 confirmed that the accused had faced criminal charges between 2010 and 2013, though he could not recall the exact year. He also confirmed that the accused, the deceased and their mother all lived in the same homestead. 26. PW6, Mildred Naliaka Muliro, testified that the accused was her younger brother. On the morning of 15th February 2024, at about 5.00 a.m., the accused unexpectedly arrived at her home and asked whether she had received any telephone calls. Upon checking her phone, she found several missed calls and contacted her younger sister, who informed her that the deceased had been killed and alleged that the accused was responsible. PW6 further testified that her husband overheard the conversation, prevented the accused from leaving, summoned the village elder, and together they escorted the accused away. She added that she fainted upon receiving the news and therefore did not know whether the police later came to her home. 27. PW6 further testified that she did not have a good relationship with the accused because he habitually harassed family members whenever they visited their ancestral home. She also stated that the accused had previously been arrested in connection with the death of another sibling and had assaulted their father, although their father later forgave him. She described the accused’s early-morning visit as unusual, noting that he had never visited her home at that hour before. She further stated that the accused had never been treated for mental illness and was capable of living independently and taking care of himself. 28. During cross-examination, PW6 acknowledged that there was nothing unusual about a brother visiting his sister. She confirmed that the accused merely asked whether she had received any telephone calls and admitted that she had not witnessed the incident involving the deceased, having learnt of it only from her younger sister. 29. On re-examination, PW6 maintained that the accused came to her home shortly after the deceased’s death. 30. PW7, Jackson Muliro Mabuku, testified that he was the accused’s brother-in-law. On the morning of 15th February 2024, at about 5.00 a.m., the accused unexpectedly arrived at PW7’s home. After noticing several missed calls and contacting a relative, Pamela, PW7 learnt that the accused had allegedly killed his brother, Makali. When confronted, the accused claimed that people had attacked him at home and that he had come to report the incident. PW7 did not accept this explanation and contacted officers from Bahai Police Post, informing them of the allegation against the accused. The accused was subsequently taken into police custody, and PW7 later recorded a statement. 31. PW7 further testified that he had known the accused for over 33 years and that both the accused and the deceased were his brothers-in-law who had previously lived in his home. He stated that the accused was independent, managed his own affairs, and had never shown signs of mental illness. He also confirmed that he had never had any disagreement with the accused. 32. During cross-examination, PW7 acknowledged that he had not witnessed the incident and had learnt of it only from family members. He confirmed that the accused had told him that people had attacked him at home, and that he had handed the accused over to the police to protect him from members of the public who were looking for him. 33. PW8, Dr. Isaac Wakanya, a Medical Officer at Webuye County Hospital, testified that he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, Frankline Makali, alias Makali Wanyonyi, on 20 February 2024. He further stated that the deceased’s relatives identified the body before the examination. 34. He testified that the external examination revealed a cut approximately five centimetres long in the right temporal and occipital regions of the head, with no injuries to the upper or lower limbs. The internal examination disclosed a linear skull fracture extending through the temporal and occipital regions, severe injury to the middle cerebral artery, and extensive intracerebral bleeding. Based on these findings, he opined that the deceased died from intracerebral bleeding caused by blunt force trauma. He also stated that samples of the deceased’s hair and nails were collected for forensic analysis and that the post-mortem report was produced as an exhibit. 35. PW8 explained that it was unnecessary to examine every organ at the post-mortem because the fatal head injury was readily apparent. He testified that brain injuries are often catastrophic and that there were no injuries to the thorax, abdomen or other parts of the body that warranted further examination. He therefore concluded that the head injury was the sole cause of death. 36. During cross-examination, PW8 explained the procedure followed during post-mortem examinations, including identification of the body by relatives and completion of the post-mortem form by both the investigating officer and the doctor. He maintained that his conclusions were based solely on his medical examination, not on assumptions. He reiterated that the cause of death was intracerebral bleeding due to blunt force trauma and confirmed that there were no injuries to the thorax or elsewhere that warranted further internal examination. **DEFENCE CASE** 1. Martin Wekesa Wanyonyi Makali, DW1, the accused, testified that he was not at the scene on 14th February 2024 and maintained that he did not know what had happened to the deceased, Franklin Makali. He stated that he had been in Namanjalala, Kitale, where he had gone to plant vegetables after being taken there by his brother-in-law. He added that his mother and sister were better placed to know what had transpired. 2. During cross-examination, DW1 confirmed that the deceased was his younger brother and testified that they had inherited family land from their late father. He stated that disagreements had arisen because his sister wanted to sell the six-acre family land, which he opposed, although he denied that the deceased and their sister had conspired to sell it. He reiterated that on the material day he had been farming tomatoes and vegetables on a three-acre farm at Namanjalala, Kitale, and that he sold the produce as a large-scale farmer. He named Wekesa and Beatrice Nanjala as persons in Kitale and alleged that his mother, Sarah, and his sister, Mildred, who knew what had occurred on the material day, had testified falsely in court. He further stated that he had been called by his brother-in-law for work but had no records to support that assertion. 3. Upon re-examination, the accused reiterated that he was a tomato and vegetable farmer with many customers, although he could not recall their names, and maintained that he had gone to his brother-in-law's home. **SUBMISSIONS** 1. The court gave directions for the parties to file their submissions. The defence indicated that it would rely on submissions on record. However, as at the time of writing this judgment, the prosecution had not filed its submissions. 2. In their submissions dated 4th December 2025, the defence argued that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel further argued that there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the fatal assault, as no witness saw the accused strike the deceased. It was contended that the prosecution’s case relied largely on the testimony of the deceased’s mother, who merely heard a commotion inside her house and found the deceased and the accused wrestling outside. Counsel submitted that, because the incident occurred at night, her evidence could not conclusively establish what transpired. It was further argued that the investigating officer failed to prepare a sketch map or establish the distance between the witness’ house and the scene, thereby casting doubt on her ability to observe the incident. Reliance was placed on Mary Wanjiku v Republic (2017) eKLR for the proposition that circumstantial evidence must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused. 3. The defence further submitted that the medical evidence was inconclusive. Counsel argued that although the post-mortem attributed the cause of death to intracerebral bleeding from blunt-force trauma, it did not identify the weapon used, link the injuries to the alleged hoe stick, or conclusively establish that they were inflicted by another person. It was contended that the deceased could have sustained the injuries by falling or during the struggle. Counsel also noted that although tissue and nail clippings had been taken for forensic analysis, the forensic report was never produced in evidence, leaving significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. Reliance was placed on Sawe v Republic (2003) eKLR, where the court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot found a conviction. 4. On circumstantial evidence, the defence argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the accused. Counsel submitted that the Occurrence Book (OB) entries were contradictory, with one entry indicating that the deceased had been assaulted with an unknown weapon, while another referred to a hoe stick. It was also submitted that the evidence was inconsistent as to whether the deceased had been found lying outside or was engaged in a fight, and that the medical evidence did not conclusively attribute the fatal injuries to an assault by the accused. Reliance was placed on Musili Tulo v Republic (2014) eKLR, in which the court held that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leaving no reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. 5. The defence further contended that the prosecution had failed to prove malice aforethought under Section 206 of the Penal Code. Counsel argued that there was no evidence of premeditation or intention to kill, and that the evidence instead showed a spontaneous altercation arising from a family dispute. Reliance was placed on Nzuki v Republic [1993] KLR 171, where the court held that malice aforethought cannot readily be inferred from a sudden fight unless the requisite intention is established. It was submitted that the circumstances pointed to a domestic misunderstanding rather than a planned or intentional killing. 6. Finally, the defence argued that material contradictions and investigative gaps created reasonable doubt. Counsel highlighted inconsistencies regarding the alleged murder weapon, the sequence of events recorded in the OB, and the investigators’ failure to recover the alleged weapon or subject it to forensic examination. It was submitted that the medical evidence did not link the injuries to the accused, and that, in view of the absence of direct evidence, the weak circumstantial evidence, and the inconclusive medical findings, the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the defence urged the court to acquit the accused under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. In a murder case, this court is to determine whether the ingredients of the offence of murder, as provided for under Section 203 of the Penal Code, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 2. Section 203 of the Penal Code, under which the accused person is charged, provides as follows: - Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder. 1. The elements of the offence of murder must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal in Anthony Ndegwa Ngari v Republic [2014] KECA 424 (KLR) set out the elements of the offence of murder as follows: “For the offence of murder, there are three elements which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order 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.” **Whether the death of the deceased and its cause were proved** 1. There is no dispute that the deceased, Franklin Makali Wanyonyi, died on the night of 14 February 2024. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 all found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding. His body was subsequently removed to Webuye County Hospital Mortuary. The evidence of PW8, Dr. Isaac Wakanya, conclusively established the cause of death. The post-mortem examination revealed a linear skull fracture involving the temporal and occipital regions, severe injury to the middle cerebral artery, and extensive intracerebral bleeding. PW8 formed the opinion that the cause of death was intracerebral bleeding resulting from blunt force trauma. 2. The defence argued that the medical evidence was inconclusive because the weapon was not identified and no forensic analysis of tissue and nail samples was conducted. I do not agree. The prosecution was not required to prove the exact weapon used to cause death. It was required to establish the cause of death. In Karani v Republic [2010] 1 KLR 73, the court held that: “The offence as charged could have been proved even if the dangerous weapon was not produced as exhibit, as indeed happens in several cases where the weapon is not recovered. So long as the court believes, on evidence before it, that such a weapon existed at the time of the offence, the court may still enter and has been entering conviction without the weapon being produced as exhibit.” 1. The fact and cause of death were established. **Whether it was the accused who unlawfully caused the death of the deceased** 1. The prosecution’s case rests on the testimony of PW1, the deceased’s mother. The defence submitted that there was no eyewitness to the assault. PW1 consistently testified that after hearing the deceased repeatedly call out “Martin”, she immediately went outside and witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased. She maintained throughout examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination that she saw the accused strike the deceased and then walk away while holding a metal axe head. She further testified that the accused pointed at her, said “wewe”, returned briefly to his house, locked it, and fled. Her evidence remained consistent throughout the lengthy cross-examination. 2. The Court of Appeal in *Abdalla bin Wendo & another v Republic* (1953) 20 EACA 166 held that: - “Subject to certain well known exceptions, it is trite law that a fact may be proved by testimony of a single witness but this rule does not lessen the need for testing with the greatest care the evidence of a single witness respecting identification, especially when it is known that the conditions favouring a correct identification were difficult. In such circumstances, what is needed is other evidence, whether it be circumstantial or direct pointing to guilt, from which a judge or jury can reasonably conclude that the evidence of identification, although based on the testimony of a single witness can safely be accepted as free from the probability of error.” 1. The incident occurred at night. However, PW1 explained that visibility was aided by her torch and that she observed the accused from a short distance. PW1 was identifying her own son, not a stranger, whom she had known throughout his life. Recognition is generally more reliable than the identification of a stranger. 2. The Court of Appeal in *Anjononi & 2 others v* Republic [1980] KECA 23 (KLR) observed that: - “This was, however, a case of recognition, not identification, of the assailants; recognition of an assailant is more satisfactory, more assuring, and more reliable than identification of a stranger because it depends upon the personal knowledge of the assailant in some form or other. We drew attention to the distinction between recognition and identification in Siro Ole Giteya v The Republic (unreported).” 1. Further corroboration is found in the accused’s conduct immediately after the incident. He left the scene and travelled to his sister’s home in Kimilili in the early morning. PW6 and PW7 confirmed his unexpected arrival. Instead of reporting the incident to the authorities, he attempted to explain that robbers had attacked the deceased. 2. Flight from the scene, by itself, is not proof of guilt. However, it is a relevant fact which, in my view, reinforces other evidence. In Republic v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63, the court recognised that post-offence conduct may constitute circumstantial evidence of guilt when considered alongside the entire evidence. 3. The defence raised an alibi, asserting that the accused was in Kitale cultivating vegetables. The law on alibi is settled. An accused assumes no burden of proving an alibi. The prosecution bears the burden of disproving it, as held in Kimotho Kiarie v Republic [1984] KECA 65 (KLR) that: “An alibi raises a specific defence and an accused person who puts forward an alibi as an answer to a charge preferred against him does not in law thereby assume any burden of proving that answer and it is sufficient if an alibi introduces into the mind of a court a doubt that is not unreasonable; Said v Republic [1963] EA 6.” 1. In the present case, the alibi was not supported by any independent evidence. The accused did not call any witnesses from Kitale, despite naming persons allegedly present with him. His explanation remained a bare assertion. On the contrary, the prosecution placed him at the scene through the direct testimony of PW1, whose evidence this court found credible. This court therefore finds that the alibi was efficiently displaced. **Whether the accused acted with malice aforethought** 1. Malice aforethought is defined in Section 206 of the Penal Code. The court in Republic v Tubere S/O Ochen [1945] 12 EACA 63 held that: “An inference of malice aforethought can be established by considering the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the manner in which the weapon was used and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the attack.” 1. The deceased sustained multiple blows to the head, resulting in a skull fracture and fatal intracerebral bleeding. The head is an extremely vulnerable part of the human body. Repeatedly striking another person on the head with a heavy metallic object is conduct from which an intention to cause death or grievous harm may properly be inferred. 2. The evidence further established an existing land dispute between the accused and the deceased. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 consistently testified that disputes over the occupation of family land had persisted for some time. 3. Although motive is not an essential ingredient of murder, its proof strengthens the prosecution's case. Section 9(3) of the Penal Code expressly provides that the absence of motive does not relieve criminal responsibility. 4. The defence relied on Nzuki v Republic [1993] KLR 171, arguing that the incident arose from a sudden fight. However, the evidence before this court does not support that argument. 5. PW1 testified that she heard the deceased call out to the accused before witnessing the accused assault him. There was no evidence that the deceased assaulted the accused or that the accused acted in self-defence or under provocation. Even assuming a confrontation, the deliberate infliction of repeated blows to the head with a metallic object went far beyond any reasonable response to provocation. 6. I find that malice aforethought was proved. 7. The defence pointed to inconsistencies regarding the weapon described in the Occurrence Book and the absence of forensic evidence. The law is that not every contradiction is fatal. In Twehangane Alfred v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2001, the court held that: “With regard to contradictions in the prosecution’s case the law as set out in numerous authorities is that grave contradictions unless satisfactorily explained will usually but not necessarily lead to the evidence of a witness being rejected. The court will ignore minor contradictions unless the court thinks that they point to deliberate untruthfulness or if they do not affect the main substance of the prosecution’s case.” 1. Whether the weapon was initially described as an unknown object or later as a metallic axe head does not alter the evidence that the deceased died from blunt-force trauma inflicted during the assault witnessed by PW1. The failure to recover the weapon or to produce forensic reports does not negate the otherwise cogent direct evidence identifying the accused as the assailant. 2. This court finds that the prosecution has proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, Martin Wekesa Wanyonyi, is hereby found guilty of the offence of murder and is convicted accordingly. **Dated, Signed** and **Delivered** **Virtually** this **23rd** day of **July 2026** **R.E. OUGO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of: -** **Martin Wekesa Wanyonyi/ Accused** **Mr. Muyala -For the Accused** **Miss Matere -For the State** **Wilkister / Minah -C/A**