In many rural villages, livestock wandering into a neighbour’s farm is treated as an irritation to be settled with calm words or modest compensation.
Goats stray, crops are damaged, tempers flare briefly and, more often than not, the matter ends without lasting harm. But when dialogue gives way to anger, even the most ordinary disputes can spiral into irreversible tragedy.
The case of Safari Kaingu Kahindi is a stark reminder of how poor conflict resolution can turn a routine village disagreement into a serious crime, quietly adding to the number of ordinary Kenyans serving long prison terms. What began as a familiar quarrel over goats grazing on a neighbour’s land ended with one man gravely injured and another condemned to spend 30 years behind bars.
The events unfolded on April 10, 2014, in Mkono wa Jogoo village, Magarini, Kilifi County. Kahindi was at his home when three goats belonging to his neighbour, Kazungu Charo Karisa, strayed into his farm and damaged several casuarina trees.
In Kilifi, what should have been a straightforward discussion about goats quickly deteriorated.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
Later that day, Charo met Kahindi at the boundary separating their properties to discuss compensation. During the exchange, Charo asked about the value of the damaged trees. Kahindi said each was worth Sh1,000, putting the total compensation at Sh7,000.
What should have been a straightforward discussion, however, quickly deteriorated. Charo questioned why the trees had been planted along the boundary in a way that appeared to block it. Instead of prompting explanation or compromise, the question sparked anger.
Words escalated into violence. Kahindi picked up a club and drew a knife. In moments, the dispute crossed a legal threshold that would permanently alter both men’s lives. Charo sustained serious injuries to the abdomen.
“Kahindi hit me with a club before stabbing me in the stomach with a knife,” Charo told the court.
Despite his injuries, Charo reported the incident to the police before seeking medical attention. He was admitted to hospital for 22 days while undergoing treatment. Kahindi was later arrested and charged before the Malindi Magistrate’s Court with assault causing grievous bodily harm.
The Malindi Law Courts complex.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
During the trial, the prosecution called five witnesses, including Charo’s wife and daughter, who testified on the sequence of events. A clinical officer, Ibrahim Abdullahi, told the court that he examined Charo and filled a P3 form indicating that the victim had suffered a stab wound and had undergone surgery on the upper abdomen under general anaesthesia.
On July 27, 2017, the magistrate’s court ruled that Kahindi had a case to answer and placed him on his defence. He failed to attend court and was arrested in April the following year. His bond was cancelled and he was remanded in custody.
When he eventually appeared before the court, Kahindi applied to change his plea. The charge was read afresh, and he pleaded guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment, effective May 15, 2018.
Unhappy with the outcome, Kahindi appealed to the High Court, challenging both his conviction and sentence. The key issues before the court were whether his plea was unequivocal and whether the 30-year sentence was harsh and excessive.
In a judgment delivered on July 10, 2023, the High Court upheld both the conviction and sentence, finding that the trial magistrate had followed the required legal procedures and that Kahindi’s plea of guilty was unequivocal. The court ruled that he was only entitled to appeal against the sentence.
In assessing the punishment, the judge noted that Kahindi pleaded guilty at an advanced stage of the trial, after being placed on his defence and after absconding, which had led to the cancellation of his bond.
“Therefore, Kahindi deserved no significant discount on the sentence for saving the court’s time and resources, and the 30-year sentence imposed is within what the law provides,” the High Court stated.
Still dissatisfied, Kahindi, now 55, moved to the Court of Appeal. He argued that the lower courts failed to adequately consider his mitigation, the period he spent in pre-trial custody, his age, health and the objectives of sentencing.
He also faulted the courts for failing to consider his age in light of the World Health Organization’s report placing human life expectancy at about 67 years. He urged the appellate court to allow his appeal and reduce the sentence, citing his health and the plight of his family.
Kahindi lamented that, at 55, he had a “paltry” nine years to live. The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the offence of grievous harm attracted a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and that the trial court had already exercised leniency. Prosecutors maintained that both the magistrate’s court and the High Court had considered all relevant factors before convicting and sentencing him.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower courts, finding no basis to interfere with the sentence. It held that its jurisdiction allowed interference only where the legality of a sentence was in question or where the courts below had considered irrelevant factors or ignored material ones.
“This court can only interfere with sentencing when a question about the legality of a sentence has been raised,” the judges said in a judgment dated December 19, 2025.
Only three months — the period Kahindi spent in custody before sentencing — were deducted from his 30-year prison term.
