Court rejects state’s bid to block release of man jailed for wife’s murder

Kalungu was arrested on August 18, 2014, and later convicted of murdering his wife.

On June 21, 2023, the High Court found him guilty and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

The State, dissatisfied with what it considered a lenient sentence, filed a notice of appeal on July 5, 2023, seeking a harsher penalty.

However, the appeal was withdrawn a year later, on July 3, 2024, sparking outrage from the deceased’s family.

After consultations, the State attempted to restore the appeal, arguing that Kalungu’s possible early release—scheduled for August 18, 2024—would undermine the justice system and the restorative programs of the prison department.

The family, represented by Joseph Maina Kimani, Mary’s father, insisted that Kalungu had served only a brief period of his sentence and that his release would render any future appeal meaningless.

Kalungu, for his part, maintained that he had met all the requirements for remission, having served the bulk of his sentence.

He argued that the State’s application was filed out of time and that the process had not been fair to him.

In his affidavit, he also contended that the victim’s family’s submissions breached the Victim Protection Act, as they were filed without the court’s permission and went beyond expressing mere concerns.

The State, in its arguments before the appellate court, maintained that the appeal raised serious questions about the proportionality of the sentence and that public interest required Kalungu to remain in prison until the matter was resolved.

The family’s lawyer echoed this, saying the appeal would be rendered “nugatory” if Kalungu was released before it was heard.

Kalungu’s counsel countered that the notice of appeal had not been properly served and that the State had failed to meet mandatory legal requirements for pursuing the appeal.

In a ruling delivered on May 23, 2025, the court dismissed the State’s entire application, clearing the way for Kalungu’s potential release on remission.

After considering the arguments, the bench —comprising Justices F. Tuiyott, Abida Ali-Aroni, and L. Achode—found that the request to halt Kalungu’s release was speculative.

They noted that the evidence about his imminent release was inconclusive and that his release would not interfere with the hearing of any future appeal.

"Whether to stay the respondent's release from prison or not may be moot at this point. We were not persuaded that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the respondent is released on remission. The prayer flops," the judges ruled.

The judges also dismissed the request to fast-track the appeal, stating that criminal hearings in Nairobi were already proceeding in real time and that it was premature to fast-track an appeal that had not yet been restored.

"An order fast-tracking the appeal is therefore unnecessary. In any event it would be premature to order the fast-tracking of an appeal which has yet to be restored. Ultimately, we dismiss the entire application for the reasons enumerated above," the judges ruled.

For Mary Waruguru Maina’s family, the decision was a bitter blow after years of seeking justice.

For Kalungu, it marked a possible end to a long legal ordeal, though the shadow of further appeals still lingers.

The ruling underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between the rights of convicts, the interests of victims’ families, and the demands of justice.

As the legal battle draws to a close, both families are left to grapple with the consequences of a tragedy that has altered their lives forever.