Court acquits four nurses over 2015 murder of cancer patient at KNH

Ten years after a cancer patient was found brutally murdered under mysterious circumstances at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH), four nurses accused of his murder have been acquitted by the High Court for lack of evidence.

Justice Diana Kavedza of Kibera High Court cleared Priscilla Wairimu Njeru, Godfrey Murithi Gachora, Rosemary Nkonge, and Mary Muthoni Kamau after finding that the DPP failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their involvement in the killing of Cosmas Mutunga Kenyatta inside the health facility, which made headlines in 2015

“The prosecution has not discharged the evidential burden required for a conviction,” Judge Diana Rachel Kavedza ruled.

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the accused persons cannot be held criminally responsible for the death of Cosmas Mutunga Kenyatta. The accused persons Wairimu, Murithi, Nkonge, and Muthoni, are hereby acquitted of the charge of murder and shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.”  

The four nurses had faced murder charges over the death of Mutunga, who died under mysterious circumstances in Ward 8C of KNH on the night of November 28 and 29, 2015.

The deceased had been admitted with stage 4 cancer and required constant care.

The prosecution alleged that the nurses were responsible for the patient’s violent death, citing multiple injuries, including stab wounds, a missing eye and fractured teeth, with a blood-stained metal bar discovered nearby.

Eighteen witnesses testified, including relatives, co-patients, and KNH security and nursing staff.

According to testimony of the widow Celestine Mwende Kenyatta, she had last seen her husband alive on November 28, when he appeared well and able to sit, eat, and converse independently.

The following day, Mwende, received an urgent call. and upon arriving at the hospital, she discovered her husband dead with severe facial injuries, missing teeth, a lost eye, and stab wounds.

Security officer Kigen Vincent Kirui testified that the ward door was closed but unlocked, with no other persons present at the scene.

“The scene was horrific. Blood was splattered across the walls, floor, and curtains. The ward was otherwise empty.”

A blood-stained metal bar, allegedly the murder weapon, was found nearby.

Forensic evidence confirmed the deceased’s blood on a metal bar and surrounding bedding, but no DNA or fingerprints linked the accused to the crime.

Prosecution also availed other witnesses including hospital staff, relatives, and co-patients to paint a picture of deliberate violence.

They argued that the nurses on duty that night were responsible for the death.

Security officers and nurses corroborated the circumstances surrounding the patient’s death, noting the ward’s porosity and the presence of co-patients at the time.

However, the defense painted a very different picture.

The accused, all experienced KNH staff, testified about their routine duties on the night in question.

Wairimu a nurse with 27 years of service, described administering treatment, monitoring patients, and discovering the body while wearing gloves.

She explained how she checked on Mutunga at 4:00 am, noticed blood on his face, and immediately summoned colleagues and security.

“I wore gloves throughout my duties,” she told the court.  

Murithi and Nkonge, also on duty, testified about securing the ward and assisting upon discovering the body, while cleaner Muthoni confirmed her limited access to the ward.

They described the ward as inherently porous, with multiple entrances, sliding windows without locks, and no security personnel stationed overnight.  

In delivering her judgment, Justice Kavedza observed that the prosecution’s evidence was largely circumstantial and contained critical gaps.

She noted that there was no direct evidence linking any of the accused to the fatal injuries or the metal bar found at the scene.

Additionally, the deceased’s immobility, the ward’s security weaknesses, and the lack of a clear motive created reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the perpetrator.

“The evidence demonstrates that while the deceased’s death was violent, the prosecution has failed to eliminate reasonable doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator,” Justice Kavedza ruled.

“Circumstantial evidence presented does not irresistibly point to the accused as joint perpetrators of the offence. There is no direct forensic or eyewitness evidence linking them to the death."

The court ruled that the key elements of murder, including that the death was caused by the accused with malice aforethought, were not proven.  

“The accused persons did not act with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The death, while tragic, could have been caused by an unknown third party.”