Grace Bisieri Okindo, 62, at the High Court in Nakuru on March 24, 2025.
After having enough of what she alleged to be her husband’s infidelity, Ms Grace Bisieri Okindo decided to eliminate her husband, Daniel Okindo, as the final solution to her persistent worries.
On the night of March 12, 2016, at their home in Ndimu Village, Lanet, Nakuru County, the 52-year-old woman ended the life of her long-time partner in a cruel manner.
However, Ms Bisieri is headed for freedom after High Court judge Samuel Mohochi sentenced her to 15 years’ imprisonment.
In his verdict, the judge, upon convicting Bisieri for murder based on circumstantial evidence, ordered that she serve 10 years in custody and the remaining five out of custody.
The sentence is meant to be backdated to the date of arraignment in 2016, when she was placed in prison remand.
However, as the judge was pronouncing himself on the case, the events of the fateful day ran quickly through the mind of the now 62-year-old woman, who stood remorseful in the dock.
For the nine years that she was held behind bars, Bisieri has been reflecting on the events leading to the cold-blooded murder that left her a widow.
She believed her husband had another woman, but he kept denying it.
This had strained their marriage, and at some point they had to involve their extended family.
The accusations were also taking a toll on the husband, who, as it emerged during the trial, had complained to his brothers and sister about his wife.
In a bid to save the union, the family held an initial meeting at their rural home in Kisii to reconcile the couple.
But after the conflict persisted, they scheduled a second forum.
The meeting was supposed to happen a few days before the shocking murder occurred.
According to the prosecution's evidence, Mr Okindo arrived home in the evening to his wife’s welcome.
He handed over the shopping he had brought to his wife, who then served him dinner—oblivious to him, she had planned his demise.
As he took his meal, the home experienced an abrupt blackout, spelling doom for him.
His wife, armed with an axe, attacked him from behind, hitting him directly on the head twice.
He went sprawling to the ground, blood oozing from his head.
She then returned the axe to the bedroom and hid it behind the door.
She called her in-laws using her husband’s phone, telling them that her husband had been attacked by thugs.
She also called the area chief, informing him of the alleged attack by thieves.
She then began screaming, calling on neighbours to come and help her husband, claiming he had been attacked while she was in the kitchen.
Neighbours arrived and found her sitting on the sofa, with her husband lying in a pool of blood, writhing in pain.
He still had food in his mouth.
Her children, who suspected her of the murder, arrived and began beating her, demanding to know what had happened to their father.
When police arrived at the scene and conducted a search, they recovered the axe in the bedroom, which they presented as an exhibit.
“The deceased (David Okindo) still had food in the mouth. David was having his meal and in the guise of darkness, the accused attacked him,” read part of the judgment.
Justice Mohochi noted that Bisieri, in her actions, had the intention of killing the man based on the choice of weapon—an axe—that was then safely returned to the bedroom.
“The serious, fatal head injury would not have been inflicted with any other intention other than to kill David—compounded by the manner in which the axe was placed back in the bedroom,” observed the judge.
A pre-sentence report presented before court on February 19 indicated that her children, the chief, and neighbours—who spoke well of her—had forgiven her and were ready to accept her back if given a non-custodial sentence.
Only her in-laws back at the rural home were still bitter with her.
The court considered her advanced age and the period she had already served in remand, alongside the recommendation of the probation office, in its sentence.
“In the premise, having considered the circumstances leading to the offence, the gravity of the offence, the fact that she is a first offender, her age and the probation report, I am of the considered view that in order to meet the objective of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation of the convict, both custodial and non-custodial (sentences) will be most appropriate,” ruled Justice Mohochi.
