Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E143 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 369 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Lamu court convicted a man of destroying his mother's phone and threatening her, but acquitted him of offensive conduct because it happened at home, not in public.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the accused maliciously damaged the complainant's Nokia C22 phone
Yes - destruction was willful, unlawful and caused by the accused; convicted under section 339(1).
Pw1 testified the accused smashed the phone on the wall, snatched it back, threw it on the floor and stepped on it. The damaged phone was produced in court and the accused never challenged the damage in cross-examination; his claim that the mother threw the phone was an afterthought. No lawful justification existed for the destruction.
Whether the accused threatened the complainant with violence
Yes - convicted under section 95(2)(a) of the Penal Code.
The accused threatened to kill his mother, summoned siblings to mark the date, brandished awareness of a knife, grabbed her by the neck against the wall and slapped her. He also broke the ceiling board to escape a locked room, which the court found injured a dwelling house within the meaning of section 95(2)(a).
Whether offensive conduct under section 94(1) was proved
No - the events occurred in a private house, not a public place or public gathering.
Only the accused, the complainant and children were present; the offence requires a public place or public gathering. Section 94(2) defines a public gathering as a meeting of over 10 people, and no evidence showed that threshold was met. The accused was accordingly acquitted on count 3.
Legal principles established
#- Elements of malicious damage to property: ownership, destruction/damage, causation by the accused, and willful and unlawful destruction.
- 'Wilful' in criminal definitions means intentional or purposely as distinguished from accidental or negligent, and may require bad purpose or evil intent.
- The offence of offensive conduct under section 94(1) of the Penal Code must occur in a public place or a public gathering; a public gathering under section 94(2) is a meeting of over 10 people.
Court orders
#- 1.The accused is convicted in count 1 for maliciously damaging the phone make Nokia C22 contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal Code under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2.The accused is convicted in count 2 for threatening violence contrary to section 95(2)(a) of the Penal Code under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3.The accused is acquitted in count 3 for the offence of offensive conduct contrary to section 94(1) of the Penal Code under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction under the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (first-instance criminal trial)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E143 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 369 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/369/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.