The High Court in Nyamira has acquitted four people charged with the murder of a US-based couple after finding that the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient link between them and the killings.
Justice T.W. Cherere found Ezekiel Mogeni Migiro, Peris Ondara, Dennis Ondara Clement and Peter Njoroge Kirika not guilty of the murders of Edward Morema Nyagechi and his wife, Grace Mong’ina Morema, who were killed at their home in Egetugi Village on the night of March 20 and 21, 2023.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses and relied on identification evidence, alleged revenge and family disputes, mobile phone records, money transfers, CCTV footage and forensic evidence to prove that the four had jointly participated in the killings.
A househelp, Sylvia Barongo Nyamai, told the court that she had seen a visitor at the couple’s home on the evening before the bodies were discovered. She later identified the first accused, Migiro, as the visitor. The prosecution linked him to an alleged revenge motive arising from his previous conviction over the theft of USD 2,000 from the couple’s daughter.
However, the defence, through Mr Nyaberi of Omwoyo, Momanyi Gichuki & Co. Advocates, challenged the identification, arguing that the househelp had only seen the visitor briefly and largely from behind. Mr Nyaberi also questioned the identification parade, arguing that it was irregular and could not cure the weaknesses in the witness’s initial observation.
Justice Cherere found that the identification was unreliable, taking into account the darkness, rain and power blackout at the time. The court also found that the alleged revenge motive did not, on its own, establish Migiro’s participation in the murders.
The second accused, Ondara, was linked to the killings through a succession dispute involving the estate of her late husband, Professor Zachary Mosoti, as well as disagreements over burial arrangements and alleged threats against Edward.
Mr Nyaberi submitted that the existence of a family and succession dispute did not establish that Ondara had participated in or procured the murders. He argued that there was no telephone, forensic or other evidence placing her at the scene or connecting her to the alleged attack. The judge found that the succession dispute and alleged threats did not sufficiently implicate Ondara in the killings.
The prosecution also relied on mobile phone records to link the third accused, Clement, to the scene. It alleged that telephone number 0735****** had been active in areas around the crime scene on the night of the murders. A firearm, ammunition and other items were also recovered during his arrest.
Mr Nyaberi challenged the attribution of the telephone number to Clement, pointing out that it was registered in the name of Jackiam Otieno, who was not called as a witness. He further argued that the cell-site data only indicated broad geographical areas and could not place Clement at the couple’s homestead.
The defence also submitted that the firearm had no ballistic connection to the killings, noting that the post-mortem evidence did not establish any gunshot injuries. Justice Cherere found that the telephone records did not establish that Clement was at the deceased couple’s home. The firearm and other recovered items were also not connected to the murders.
The fourth accused, Kirika, was linked to mobile money transactions in which Sh.62,000 was transferred from the deceased couple’s accounts to a telephone number registered in the name of Douglas Mungai. A subsequent withdrawal of Sh.35,500 was made at a Co-operative Bank ATM in Limuru.
Businessman Charles Kibui Mbugua testified that he had lent Kirika a business handset which was allegedly used to receive the money. He also claimed to have identified Kirika in CCTV footage showing a person at the ATM.
Mr Nyaberi challenged the identification, arguing that the person captured in the footage was masked and that the witness had not explained sufficiently how he identified Kirika. The defence further argued that the money transfers and alleged return of the handset without its SIM card did not prove participation in the murders.
Justice Cherere found that although the transfers and withdrawal had been established, the prosecution had not proved that Kirika controlled the recipient telephone number, borrowed the handset or was the person captured in the CCTV footage. The judge also noted that the prosecution had failed to call material witnesses, including the registered owner of the telephone line and Stanley Kuria, who was allegedly involved in returning the handset.
In its written submissions dated July 9, 2026, the prosecution, led by Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Chirchir, urged the court to consider the evidence cumulatively. It argued that the identification of Migiro, the alleged motive involving Ondara, the telephone-location evidence against Clement and the money transfers and CCTV footage involving Kirika formed a chain of circumstances establishing their participation in the murders.
Mr Chirchir also relied on Section 21 of the Penal Code, submitting that the accused persons had acted with a common intention and were therefore liable for acts committed in furtherance of the alleged common plan. The prosecution further maintained that the identification parade was properly conducted and relied on the doctrine of last seen.
In response, Mr Nyaberi submitted that no witness had seen any of the accused persons attack or kill the couple and that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence which did not exclude reasonable doubt. He challenged the alleged links against each accused person and pointed to the absence of DNA and fingerprint evidence connecting them to the crime scene.
The court also considered the DNA evidence presented by Government Analyst Henry Kiptoo Sang. Although the analysis established that blood stains on several exhibits belonged to the deceased, it did not establish who had deposited the blood or used the items during the murders. No DNA evidence connected any of the four accused persons to the killings.
In its final determination, the court found that the prosecution had proved that Edward and Grace were unlawfully killed with malice aforethought but had failed to prove the participation of any of the four accused persons.
“The cumulative circumstantial evidence raised suspicion but did not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of any accused person,” Justice Cherere ruled.
The judge further found that the prosecution had not established common intention under Section 21 of the Penal Code and held that suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The four accused persons were consequently acquitted on both counts of murder and ordered to be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
