A man who attempted kill his elder brother over a share of inheritance will serve four years in jail after losing his appeal. Adan Dida Guyo was sent to jail by the magistrates Court for assault and the High Court has confirmed the sentence.
On March 22, 2015 at 2 pm Mohamed Guyo was at home with some casual employees working. His younger brother, Dida, showed up and demanded that he should get a share of inheritance. The demand came with a rider that if his demands were not met, he would kill him.
Dida at the time of the demand was armed with a knife. The accused pounced on Mohamed, ready to slash him but he was not strong enough- he was overpowered and was cut on the palm in the process of disarming him.
Dida defended himself saying that when he went to his brother’s compound, Mohamed accused him of being drunk and ordered him out.
The court heard that the complainant (Mohamed) cut him on the head with a machete before he was tied and taken to the police.
He testified there was bad blood between him and his brother over unequal sharing of his father’s estate. But Justice Kiarie Waweru did not believe his testimony.
The judge found that he had not produced any evidence in court to support his claim. According to the Judge, Dida had told the court that he was going to produce a witness who could corroborate his testimony but after he stood on the dock to testify, he told the court that he had closed his side of argument.
“The contention of the appellant that when he went to his brother’s home the latter fetched a machete and cut him on the head is not supported by any evidence on record. His version does not account for the injury the complainant sustained. The learned trial magistrate was right in dismissing it,” Justice Kiarie said.
“He cannot be heard to complain that he was not given a chance to call his witness. He had a right to close his case, even if he had earlier said he intended to call a witness.”
According to the court, if the grudge between the two was assessed, either of the two would have taken the advantage of the situation to eliminate the other. He found: “Even if we assume that a grudge existed, it cannot be isolated from the evidence.
Such a grudge can only help the court to appreciate the facts as borne out by evidence on record. If a grudge existed, either party could exploit it for an advantage. The record clearly shows that the learned trial magistrate was guided by facts.”
Dida also asked the court to have mercy on him as since he had never before been apprehended for breaking the law but Justice Kiarie ruled that the threat to kill was enough for him to cool his heels behind bars.
“Although the accused had no previous conviction, the circumstances under which the offence was committed militate against any interference with the sentence which the trial court meted out. The appellant had threatened to kill.
Even after he had been tied with a rope he continued to issue threats. His appeal on sentence is therefore dismissed,” said Justice Kiarie.