Daniel Mwomole Adede v Republic [2019] KECA 260 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a murder conviction and death sentence, ruling that the landmark Muruatetu ruling does not automatically spare offenders from the death penalty.
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 evidence proved the offence of murder by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, including malice aforethought
- 2.Whether the conviction based on identification/recognition by two witnesses was safe
- 3.Whether the mandatory death sentence should be disturbed in light of the Muruatetu decision, given that the appellant was a first offender
Key legal issues
#Whether malice aforethought was proved beyond reasonable doubt
Malice aforethought was proved; the appellant and his co-assailants attacked the deceased with an intent to kill, as shown by the words they uttered, the weapons they carried and the vicious, premeditated attack.
The Court applied section 206 of the Penal Code, which deems malice aforethought established by proof of intention to cause death or grievous harm or knowledge that the act will probably cause death. The appellant came armed with a somali sword and club, hit a guard, chased the fleeing deceased, and inflicted head injuries. Relying on Daniel Muthee v Republic, arming oneself with a panga with intent to cause grievous harm or death established malice aforethought under section 206(b).
Whether the appellant could be criminally responsible where the fatal blow may have been inflicted by others among the assailants
Yes. Once the appellant was placed at the scene and parties were acting on a common intention, it was immaterial who inflicted the fatal injury; each is responsible for the acts of the others in the common purpose.
The appellant argued that five people with five different weapons attacked the deceased and that doubt remained as to who fatally beat her. The Court invoked the persuasive Ugandan authority Uganda v Sebaganda s/o Miruho on common intention, holding that where the injury is inflicted in carrying out a common purpose, each participant is responsible for the acts of the others.
Whether the conviction based on identification by recognition of a single identifying witness without corroboration was unsafe
The conviction was safe. The appellant was positively identified by both PW1 and PW2 by recognition, in circumstances conducive to proper identification, and the identification was free from error.
The Court applied the caution in Wamunga v Republic and R v Turnbull on identification by recognition. Both PW1 and PW2 knew the appellant as a step-brother of the deceased; there was still light at the time of the attack and the assailants' mother was holding a torch. Guided by Shalen Shakimba Ole Betui and Anjononi v R, the Court found no possibility of mistaken identity.
Whether the death sentence should be set aside on the strength of Muruatetu, the appellant being a first offender
Although Muruatetu renders a mandatory sentence unconstitutional and empowers the Court to determine sentence on the facts, the Court declined to interfere with the death sentence because of the heinous and aggravating circumstances of the attack.
The Court accepted that following Muruatetu it may impose an appropriate individualised sentence, as it had done in Christopher Ochieng v R and Jared Koita Injiri v R. However, it weighed the aggravating circumstances: the appellant pursued and viciously attacked the fleeing deceased with intent to kill, inserted sticks into her private parts, and his conduct depicted premeditated, monstrous murder. His first-offender status and mitigation did not outweigh these factors.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal is mandated to analyse and re-evaluate the evidence afresh, while being mindful that the trial court had the advantage of seeing and assessing the demeanor of the witnesses.
- Where persons act in furtherance of a common intention, it is immaterial who inflicted the fatal injury; each participant is responsible for the acts of the others done in carrying out the common purpose.
- Malice aforethought can be inferred from the words uttered, the weapons carried and the nature of the attack, where the assailant armed himself with a clear intention of causing grievous harm or death.
- Following Muruatetu, the Court of Appeal is at liberty to determine the appropriate sentence based on the facts of each case, since a mandatory sentence takes away judicial discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The conviction and the death sentence meted on the appellant are upheld and affirmed
- 2.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- HCCC No. 60 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence in a murder trial (Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2018)
Relief refused
#Quashing of the conviction
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the malice aforethought of the appellant and his co-assailants, and his identification by recognition was free from error
Substitution of the death sentence with a term sentence on the strength of Muruatetu
Due to the aggravating circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased, the Court declined to vary or interfere with the death sentence
Costs
No costs order was made 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 appeal has no merit. We uphold and affirm the conviction and the death sentence meted on the appellant. This appeal be and is hereby dismissed in its entirely.
This being a first appeal, our mandate as an appellate Court is to analyze and re-evaluate the evidence, being mindful of the fact that, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and assessing the demeanor of the witnesses.
that where there is common intention, it is immaterial who inflicts the fatal injury to the deceased as long as when the injury is inflicted the parties are carrying out a common purpose and in such a case one is responsible for the acts of the other.
Following that decision, this Court is at liberty to determine the appropriate sentence based on the facts of each case.
The appellant's conduct of inserting sticks into the private parts of the deceased depicts the gruesome nature of the pain inflicted on the deceased.
Issues in the judgment
#The final order contains a typographical error in the word 'entirely' as printed ('in its entirely').
The signature block name 'ASIKE-MAKHANDIA' differs from the coram listing 'MAKHANDIA' for the same judge.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Mwomole Adede v Republic [2019] KECA 260 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/260/eng@2019-10-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.