Nguwa alias Kandili & another v Republic (Criminal Appeal E084 of 2023 & E025 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 2107 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld two murder convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone, confirming DNA evidence is not required when other proof is strong.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants for the offence charged
- 2.Whether, before convicting the appellants, the learned Judge considered their defences
Key legal issues
#Whether the circumstantial evidence sufficed to convict the appellants of murder
Yes. The cumulative circumstantial evidence - the appellants being last seen with the deceased between 3:00pm and 7:00pm, the recovery of the 2nd appellant's cap and the wooden weapon at the scene, and the unbroken chain of circumstances - met the threshold for proof beyond reasonable doubt and excluded any other reasonable hypothesis.
The Court applied the Sawe and Abanga tests for circumstantial evidence, holding the inculpatory facts incompatible with innocence. PW5 and PW6 were the last to see the deceased alive in the 2nd appellant's company shortly before the fatal screams. The 2nd appellant's cap and the piece of wood recovered at the scene completed the chain. The 1st appellant's claim of leaving at 4:00pm was contradicted by PW1, PW2 and PW8, and the defences were dislodged by the overwhelming prosecution evidence.
Whether malice aforethought was proved
Yes. The medical evidence showed repeated strikes to the head causing compound skull fracture and internal haemorrhage, demonstrating an intention to cause death or grievous harm under section 206(a) of the Penal Code.
Guided by section 206 of the Penal Code and the decision in Bonaya Tutu Ipu & another v Republic citing Chesakit v Uganda, the Court took into account the part of the body targeted, the type of weapon used, the severity of the injuries inflicted and the conduct of the perpetrators. The targeting of the vulnerable head with deliberate and brutal force established mens rea.
Whether failure to conduct DNA or forensic examination undermined the conviction
No. Reliance on forensic evidence is the choice of investigating officers and its absence does not affect the credibility of otherwise credible evidence linking the accused to the offence.
Counsel argued that the absence of forensic or DNA evidence linking the murder weapon to the appellants rendered the conviction unsafe. The Court, following its own decision in David Kahura Wangari v Republic, rejected the argument, holding that the compelling circumstantial evidence - last seen with the deceased and recovery of the cap at the scene - spoke for itself and remained unshaken.
The duty of a first appellate court
A first appeal is by way of a rehearing: the appellate court must subject the evidence to a fresh and exhaustive examination, make its own findings and draw its own conclusions, while allowing for the trial court's advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
The Court restated the duty from Okeno v Republic and Ogaro v Republic, endorsed in the comparative decision of the Supreme Court of India in Ganpat v State of Haryana, that an appellate court is not confined to scrutinising whether some evidence supports the lower court's finding but must itself weigh conflicting evidence and reach its own decision on the whole evidence.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must re-evaluate, re-analyse and reconsider the evidence afresh and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for the fact that it did not see the witnesses testify
- A conviction on circumstantial evidence requires inculpatory facts incompatible with the accused's innocence and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis, with the burden remaining on the prosecution throughout
- The absence of DNA or forensic evidence does not of itself undermine a prosecution case otherwise proved on credible evidence; recourse to DNA testing is a matter for the investigating officers
Court orders
#- 1.The consolidated appeals are dismissed
- 2.The judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Malindi (R. Nyakundi, J.) delivered on 4th September 2023 in HCCR Case No. 10 of 2019 is upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Malindi
- Malindi HC Criminal Case No. 10 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Rules, rule 31(1)(a), over appeals from the High Court exercising original criminal jurisdiction
- Consolidated with
- Criminal Appeal No. E084 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. E025 of 2024
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the convictions and quashing of the 20-year sentences
The Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions and the trial Judge's analysis correct
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.
we reach the inescapable conclusion that the consolidated appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Malindi (R. Nyakundi, J.) delivered on 4th September 2023 in HCCR Case No. 10 of 2019 is hereby upheld. Orders accordingly.
the compelling circumstantial evidence that the appellants were the last persons seen with the deceased, and that the 2nd appellant's cap was found at the scene of murder speaks for itself and remained unshaken.
we are left with no doubt that the deceased was in the company of the appellants between 3:00pm and 7:00pm, when he was killed and the cap worn by the 2nd appellant left at the scene.
The burden of proving facts that justify the drawing of this inference from the facts to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence is on the prosecution, and always remains with the prosecution. It is a burden, which never shifts to the party accused.
Issues in the judgment
#Ground 3 of the memorandum of appeal refers to the investigating officer as 'PW-2' whereas the investigating officer is PW11 (Senior Sergeant Wanjala Mariam), an internal inconsistency in the appellants' grounds
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.
- Mbaka v Ontiti (Environment and Land Appeal E031 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2637 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2637 (KLR)30 Apr 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nguwa alias Kandili & another v Republic (Criminal Appeal E084 of 2023 & E025 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 2107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal Nos. E084 of 2023 and E025 of 2024 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2107/eng@2025-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.