By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court in Garissa has upheld the conviction of Abdifatah Mohamed for the offence of manslaughter but reduced his prison sentence from 12 years to seven years after re-evaluating the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case.
Mohamed had been convicted by the Garissa Chief Magistrate’s Court for unlawfully causing the death of Joseph Mutia Muthui on July 8, 2024, at Makuti Bar in Mororo Trading Centre, Bangale Sub-County, Tana River County.
The trial court had sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment, prompting him to appeal both the conviction and sentence.
In his appeal, Mohamed argued that the prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent and insufficient to sustain a conviction, that he had not been informed of his right to legal representation and that the trial court failed to properly consider his mitigation as a first-time offender.
He further faulted the trial court for failing to apply Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code when sentencing him.
The prosecution opposed the appeal, maintaining that the evidence on record demonstrated that Mohamed pushed the deceased into the Tana River following a quarrel, resulting in his drowning.
The State argued that the act was dangerous and directly caused the death, even though the body was never recovered.
In re-examining the case as a first appellate court, Justice J.N. Onyiego restated the duty to independently analyze the evidence while bearing in mind that the appellate court did not see or hear the witnesses testify.
The court confirmed that proof of death does not require recovery of a body where circumstances clearly point to death, noting that both prosecution witnesses and the appellant himself acknowledged that the deceased drowned and never resurfaced.
The court found that a key prosecution witness had directly witnessed the altercation and saw Mohamed push the deceased into the river after the deceased stabbed him during a struggle.
The judge noted that the incident occurred in daylight and that the witness was familiar with both the accused and the deceased, reducing the risk of mistaken identity.
The testimony was further supported by other witnesses who confirmed Mohamed’s injuries, his request for help immediately after the incident and the surrounding circumstances at the scene.
While the defence claimed that Mohamed only attempted to rescue the deceased after hearing screams, the court held that the version of events advanced by the prosecution was coherent, consistent and corroborated by surrounding evidence.
The judge concluded that Mohamed’s actions constituted an unlawful act that led to the deceased’s death, satisfying the legal threshold for manslaughter under Section 202 of the Penal Code.
On sentencing, however, the High Court found merit in the appeal. Justice Onyiego noted that although manslaughter carries a potential life sentence, sentencing must reflect the specific circumstances of each case.
The court observed that the incident arose from a quarrel, that the deceased had stabbed the appellant during the confrontation, and that Mohamed was unarmed at the time.
The judge further considered that Mohamed was a first offender and had already spent time in remand custody.
Comparing similar manslaughter cases, the court found the original 12-year sentence excessive in the circumstances.
The sentence was therefore reduced to seven years’ imprisonment, to run from the date of sentencing by the trial court.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed, while the appeal on sentence was allowed to the extent of the reduction.
The judgment was delivered on December 18, 2025.
