Kericho men lose appeal in fatal beating of drunk man who demanded Sh50 change » Capital News

NAIROBI, Kenya, Jun 22 — The Court of Appeal sitting in Nakuru has dismissed an appeal filed by two men convicted of the 2016 murder of Stanley Kibet Kosgei, a drunk man the duo assaulted after he demaded Sh50 change.

In a judgement rendered on Friday, the court held finding by the trial court were sound and supported by strong eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices John Mativo, Mumbi Gachoka, and Weldon Korir unanimously upheld the convictions and 20-year prison sentences for Dennis Kipkurui Kigen alias Killing and David Kiplagat Chelule, finding no merit in their appeal.

“We are satisfied, just like the trial judge, that the death was caused by the unlawful actions of the appellants,” the judges ruled.

The bench noted the fatal beating inflicted on the deceased was unjustified and sustained even after pleas from witnesses to stop.

“The appellants knew the consequences of their actions would lead to serious injuries inflicted upon the deceased. That alone amounted to malice aforethought,” the bench held.

The court heard that the deceased, who was drunk at the time, had entered the compound of one of the appellants in Kericho, allegedly to reclaim Sh50 change from a Sh200 liquor transaction.

Witnesses testified that the two appellants, joined by others, assaulted Kosgei with a club and stick until he was left unconscious. He later died en route to hospital.

Cow horn claim overruled

The defence had argued that the deceased could have been fatally injured by a cow’s horn, not by the beatings.

However, the judges dismissed this assertion as speculative and unconvincing.

“Though the deceased was suspected to be a thief, the assault injuries inflicted on him were so grave and did not justify the reasons why he was beaten,” the court said.

The appeal also challenged the sentencing, particularly for the first appellant, Kigen, whose age at the time of the offence was in question.

The court acknowledged that he was a minor—aged 14—but found that his conduct warranted a custodial sentence despite his youth.

“Though the 1st appellant was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence, he was already of majority age at the time of sentencing. Taking into account his conduct… we are satisfied that the custodial sentence that was meted out was appropriate,” the ruling stated.

Nonetheless, the Court ordered that both sentences be computed from the date of the appellants’ initial arraignment on March 11, 2016, given that they had been held in remand throughout the trial.

The ruling brings to a close a legal battle that has dragged on for nearly a decade, reaffirming the judiciary’s commitment to upholding convictions where evidence meets the threshold.

“Ultimately, we find that the appellants were properly convicted of the offence of murder. Accordingly, the appeal on conviction lacks merit and is hereby dismissed,” the judges affirmed.