The Court of Appeal has upheld prison beauty queen Ruth Wanjiku Kamande’s death sentence issued by a trial court two years ago.
The appellate court found the conviction of Kamande for murder was within the confines of the law, and there was no reason to interfere with the death penalty.
A three-judge bench comprising justices Hannah Okwengu, Mohammed Warsame and Jamilla Mohammed said the prosecution had offset the burden of proving the murder case.
Kamande was sent to the hangman on May 31, 2018, by the High Court after she was found guilty of fatally stabbing her boyfriend Farid Mohamed Halim with a knife 25 times at Buruburu, Nairobi.
Kenya has not carried out executions since 1987. The government has in the past commuted death sentences of thousands of death-row convicts to life in prison.
Kamande committed the offence on September 20, 2015, stabbing Farid multiple times on the chest, hands, legs, head, abdomen, back and shoulders.
“Having carefully examined the evidence on record, we find the conclusion that the appellant violently, intentionally and unlawfully killed the deceased inescapable,” ruled the judges.
In her appeal, Kamande said the charge of murder had not been proved and, therefore, her conviction and sentence, was unsafe.
Through former Attorney-General Githu Muigai, a senior counsel, Kamande had urged the court to substitute the judgment of the High Court with a finding of manslaughter.
In the 20 grounds of appeal, Prof Muigai said the death of Kamande’s lover occurred following a confrontation between the two and the appellant was acting in self-defence.
The court heard that she had been threatened and attacked and that she had defended herself from imminent death. She had also been admitted to Kenyatta National Hospital for two days.
Prof Muigai told the appeal court that the stab wounds were random and not around one location in a calculated attempt to kill the deceased.
He added that the trial court relied on illogical, contradictory and inconsistent evidence to convict and sentence the appellant.
“The appellant did not have malice aforethought as she did not take the weapon from the kitchen. She did not commence the attack and she had not shown any aggression towards the deceased prior to being threatened,” Prof Muigai told the appellate judges.
He further submitted that the trial court had exhibited bias against the appellant because of certain statements that were made by Trial Judge Jessie Lessit before analysing the evidence.
“The trial court had concluded that the appellant was jealous based on the evidence of the first prosecution witness who had only ever met the appellant for one hour,” said Prof Muigai.
However, the three-judge bench dismissed the appeal on grounds that the evidence adduced by the prosecution built a cogent and irrefutable picture of a person who meant their action to kill.
“As clearly pointed out by the prosecution, the elements that constitute malice aforethought are that the nature of the weapon used, nature of injuries suffered by the deceased, the conduct, before, during and after the incident, and lastly the manner of use of the weapon,” said the judges.
On the issue of acting in self-defence, the judges said the claim was unbelievable, given the cogent and compelling evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Kamande is serving her sentence at the Lang’ata Women Prison where she was crowned the beauty queen.
