[2017] KEHC 125 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 125 (KLR)

The court found that while the accused admitted to shooting the arrow that caused the deceased's death, there was insufficient evidence to prove malice aforethought. The accused's defence that he believed he was shooting at cattle thieves was credible, given the poor visibility at night and lack of evidence of any motive to kill his father. The court accepted that the accused acted under a mistaken belief in defence of his property, and thus, the essential element of intent required for murder was not established. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused, and the charge of murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 125 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Weldon Langat Towet
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 June 2017
Case Number
Criminal Case 20 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Judgment
Outcome
acquittal
Judges
JV Juma
Legal Topics
Murder, Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Malice Aforethought, Self Defence, Mistaken Identity
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Murder Actus Reus Mens Rea Malice Aforethought Self Defence Mistaken Identity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Weldon Langat Towet

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused caused the death of the deceased by an unlawful act.
  2. 2 Whether the accused acted with malice aforethought as required for the offence of murder.
  3. 3 Whether the accused's defence of mistaken identity and self-defence is tenable in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the accused admitted to shooting the arrow that caused the deceased's death, there was insufficient evidence to prove malice aforethought. The accused's defence that he believed he was shooting at cattle thieves was credible, given the poor visibility at night and lack of evidence of any motive to kill his father. The court accepted that the accused acted under a mistaken belief in defence of his property, and thus, the essential element of intent required for murder was not established. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused, and the charge of murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

acquittal

Orders

  • The accused is acquitted of the charge of murder.
  • The accused is to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.