Julius Obare Angasa v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal reduced a murder conviction to manslaughter because the trial judge ignored the accused's claim that drinking affected his intent.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Irregularity in dispensing with the attendance of the third assessor
Although the trial Judge defaulted in formally dispensing with the absent assessor's attendance and in making a clear record, the trial was not a nullity because section 298(1) permitted continuation with two assessors and no failure of justice was occasioned.
Section 262 and 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code require trials before the High Court with three assessors, but section 298(1) allows the trial to proceed with fewer where an assessor is prevented from attending and his attendance cannot immediately be enforced. The court held the phrase 'not practicable immediately to enforce his attendance' must take into account the circumstances of each case; given the four-year delay since the crime and nothing on the record showing attendance could be procured that day, the irregularity did not vitiate the trial.
Failure to direct on the defence of intoxication
The trial Judge erred in failing to direct himself and the assessors on intoxication despite the appellant raising liquor consumption in his unsworn statement; this ground succeeded.
Section 13(4) of the Penal Code requires intoxication to be taken into account in determining whether the accused formed the necessary intention. Relying on David Munga Maina v Republic, the court held that raising liquor consumption is not a plea of insanity but a request that the court consider whether the accused could form the specific intent to kill. The Judge mentioned manslaughter in the summing-up but did not tell the assessors the basis for considering it, so the duty to direct was breached.
Appropriate sentence on substitution of manslaughter conviction
The court imposed a severe sentence of twenty years imprisonment, running from the date of the High Court sentence, to mark that liquor is no excuse for grave crimes, despite the appellant being a first offender.
The appellant brutally attacked a heavily pregnant woman with a panga, killing her and her unborn child. Although a first offender, the court considered the gravity of the offence warranted a severe sentence that would bring home to him that intoxication is no excuse for such crimes. The sentence runs from 13th June 2006 when he was sentenced by the High Court at Kisii.
Legal principles established
#- A trial begun with three assessors may proceed with two assessors only where it is not practicable immediately to enforce the attendance of the absent assessor under section 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the trial Judge must show on the record that attendance could not immediately be procured, though failure to make a formal order dispensing with attendance does not automatically vitiate the trial if no failure of justice occurred.
- Where an accused raises intoxication, the trial Judge is under a duty to direct himself and the assessors on whether intoxication deprived the accused of the ability to form the specific intent, pursuant to section 13(4) of the Penal Code; a claim of having taken liquor is not a plea of insanity.
Court orders
#- 1.Conviction for murder set aside and substituted with a conviction for manslaughter under section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code
- 2.Sentence of death imposed by the trial court set aside
- 3.Appellant sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment to run from 13th June 2006
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisii
- H.C. Cr. C. No. 25 of 2003
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence on a murder charge under the Criminal Procedure Code
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.
- Titus Wambomba Mukewa v Republic[2026] KECA 278 (KLR)13 Feb 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Julius Obare Angasa v Republic", Case Analysis (2010). Criminal Appeal 271 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2010/458/eng@2010-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.