Republic v Muthengi (Sexual Offence E244 of 2024) [2025] KEMC 371 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Intent to unlawfully cause death in attempted murder
The accused possessed the intent to cause death/harm, manifested in words to his wife that he would cut up the complainant, which he immediately actualized.
PW 3, the accused's wife, testified that the accused said he was going to cut up the complainant; her efforts to dissuade him failed and he went out and actualized the threat. The accused never cross-examined her on this assertion. Following Republic v Ominya and the authorities there cited, intention to kill may be expressed verbally or manifest in an overt act and inferred from the evidence.
Acts likely to endanger human life and grievous harm
The accused committed grave acts designed to endanger the complainant's life, and occasioned grievous harm, proved by the complainant's testimony, visible scars, P3 forms and medical evidence classifying the injuries as grievous harm.
The complainant sustained multiple cut wounds from a panga confirmed by the P3 form of Dr. Nthanga (P. Exh. 5) and medical report (P. Exh. 2), including a permanent disability of the right thumb. Her son Brian Muthengi Musee (PW 2) was also attacked. The court found the accused committed grave acts designed to permanently endanger the complainant's life, and the defence did not displace the prosecution's evidence.
Defence of land dispute and counter-narrative
The defence narrative of a land dispute and destruction of the accused's property failed to displace the prosecution evidence.
The accused claimed the complainant's family was seeking to evict him from land and had destroyed his house. The court found the defence was twisted to fit a narrative countering the prosecution's testimony, and the defence witness's testimony did little other than mitigate, which was immaterial at the point of determination of guilt.
Legal principles established
#- The mens rea required for attempted murder is a positive intention to kill, which may be manifested by words or an overt act and inferred from the evidence.
- The burden of proving a criminal case rests with the prosecution and does not shift to the accused; the accused is presumed innocent under Article 50(2)(a).
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require certainty but must carry a high degree of probability (Miller v Minister of Pensions).
Court orders
#- 1.Accused convicted on count I of attempted murder of Everlyne Mueni Muli contrary to Section 220 of the Penal Code
- 2.Accused convicted on count II of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code against Everlyne Mueni Muli
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction under the Penal Code (Cap 63) and Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75), section 215
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Muthengi (Sexual Offence E244 of 2024) [2025] KEMC 371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). M.C.S.O. No. E244 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/371/eng@2025-09-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.