Bungoma court acquits two men in property destruction case due to weak prosecution

On a September afternoon in 2020, homes in Mbwana B village were ransacked. Windows shattered, solar panels torn away, motorcycles and furniture destroyed. The attackers were armed with pangas and wooden clubs. By the time the dust settled, six charges had been filed against three men: housebreaking, theft, malicious damage to property. Six years later, in a Bungoma courtroom, Senior Principal Magistrate Joseph Maloba dismantled the case piece by piece, finding so little substance beneath the allegations that he had no choice but to acquit two of the accused entirely.

Anthony Miluni Wafula and Cornelius Morris Munyasia walked free on September 5, 2026—exactly six years after the incident that had brought them to trial. The prosecution's case, Maloba ruled, had failed to meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons were stark and methodical: witnesses who were supposed to appear never showed up. Evidence that should have been presented was missing. The investigating officer, summoned to court, did not come. The man whose house was allegedly broken into and robbed—Godfrey Wafula—never testified, despite being listed as the primary complainant.

The incident itself had roots in a family land dispute. Neighbors and relatives testified that the attackers came armed and angry, that they entered homes and took things: a machete, a hoe, a radio, a USB drive, a mobile phone, three thousand shillings in cash. One witness, Silvia Wekesa Barasa, described armed men storming her house, asking where her husband was, ransacking rooms before moving on to the next target. She identified Anthony as her brother-in-law among the attackers. But identification alone, the court would later find, was not enough to carry the weight of six criminal charges.

Anthony testified in his own defense, claiming he had been working as a barber on the day of the attack and only learned of his arrest when he went to the police station asking about his co-accused. Cornelius did not testify at all. He absconded from court before his defense case began, and the trial proceeded without him. Yet even his absence did not seal his guilt. The magistrate found that the prosecution's failure to present its case meant there was nothing to answer, whether he was present or not.

The evidentiary gaps were decisive. Photographs meant to document the property damage had been marked for identification but were never formally entered as exhibits. Without them, the court could not make findings on what had actually been destroyed. The magistrate also examined whether the legal definition of housebreaking had been satisfied. The evidence suggested that people were home when the attackers arrived, going about their daily lives before the chaos erupted. There was no clear record that the houses had been locked or secured. A door being forced open, the judge reasoned, amounted to malicious damage—not housebreaking as defined in sections 303 and 304 of the Penal Code.

The case against a third accused, Maurice Wafula, had already been withdrawn after his death was confirmed through a burial permit. Now, with Maloba's ruling, all three men stood acquitted. The magistrate applied section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code, granting Anthony the benefit of the doubt regarding his alibi. Cornelius, though absent, received the same protection: the state had not proved its case against him either.

The judgment stands as a stark reminder of what happens when prosecution fails at its most basic task. Witnesses do not appear. Evidence is not produced. The investigating officer is absent. The primary complainant never takes the stand. In a system built on the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, these omissions are not minor oversights. They are the difference between conviction and freedom.