Nana M’ameru & 2 others v Republic [2014] KECA 657 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed three murder appeals, ruling that a grudge, an alibi, or witnesses being related to the victim cannot overturn solid eyewitness testimony.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the alibi defence raised by the appellants was adequately considered and evaluated by the trial court
- 2.Whether the grudge, if any, that existed between the deceased and the appellants is a defence to the charge of murder
- 3.Whether the fact that the four prosecution eye witnesses were related to the deceased undermined their testimony
Key legal issues
#Sufficiency of consideration of the alibi defence
The trial Judge did not err in considering the alibi defence and concluding it was an afterthought displaced by watertight eye witness evidence.
The Court re-evaluated the testimony of the four eye witnesses and found the appellants were properly identified and recognized as the persons who cut and killed the deceased. The eye witness account placed each appellant at the scene, so the alibi was disproved. The Court adopted Ramadhan Kombe v Republic, where the weapon and cause of death were obvious and there was no other version of how the deceased was killed nor by whom.
Whether a grudge defeats the charge of murder
A grudge between the deceased and the appellants does not negate malice aforethought; cutting the deceased with slashers evidenced an intention to kill.
The Court adopted Daniel Muthee v R on malice aforethought under Section 206(b) of the Penal Code, holding that setting upon the deceased and cutting him with a sharp instrument shows knowledge that death or grievous harm would result. The grudge was irrelevant where the evidence showed the appellants cut the deceased with slashers intending to kill him.
Testimony of related eye witnesses
Relationship of the eye witnesses to the deceased did not affect their evidence and caused the appellants no prejudice.
The Court found the evidence of the four eye witnesses overwhelming and cogent, consistent and corroborative, and delivered in broad daylight. The trial Judge had examined their demeanour and found them honest and worthy of belief, and the defence had not cross-examined on the issue, which the trial court found to be an afterthought.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence on record and come to its own independent conclusions.
- An alibi defence is displaced where consistent and credible eye witness testimony places the accused at the scene and identifies him as the offender.
- A prior grudge between accused and deceased is not a defence to murder where the evidence establishes the requisite malice aforethought.
- A court may infer malice aforethought from the unexplained conduct of the accused under Section 111 of the Evidence Act.
- The fact that eye witnesses are related to the deceased does not by itself affect the probative value of their identification of the attackers where no prejudice is shown.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed
- 2.The conviction of the appellants for murder and the sentences of death imposed by the High Court stand
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Meru
- H.C.CR.C No. 6 of 2006
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a conviction and sentence from the High Court sitting on a murder trial (Criminal Appeal from the High Court)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the murder convictions and death sentences on the ground of a grudge between the appellants and the deceased's family
A grudge did not negate malice aforethought and the eye witness evidence remained overwhelming
Discrediting the prosecution case because the eye witnesses were related to the deceased
The relationship of the witnesses did not affect what they saw as eye witnesses and the appellants suffered no prejudice
Costs
No order as to costs is recorded in the judgment.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This is a first appeal and it is our duty to re-evaluate the evidence on record and come to our own independent conclusions.
We find that the eye witness account of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 displaces and disproves the alibi raised by each of the appellants.
by dint of Section 111 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 of the Laws of Kenya, a court will be perfectly entitled to infer malice aforethought from the unexplained conduct of the appellants
The upshot is that we find this appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records no formal final orders section and makes no order as to costs; the dismissal is expressed only in the closing line of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Wangui v Wangui (Environment and Land Case 1403 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 5971 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5971 (KLR)2 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nana M’ameru & 2 others v Republic [2014] KECA 657 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/657/eng@2014-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.