Lang’ata man loses appeal over midnight arson plot

In a firm declaration of the right to personal safety and domestic peace, the High Court in Kibera on June 9, 2025, upheld the conviction and seven-year imprisonment of Josephat Ondari Omari for attempted arson.

The court found that the act could have endangered the life and property of a neighbour in Lang’ata.

Justice Diana Kavedza ruled that Omari’s actions, which took place on September 23, 2023, posed a grave threat to the human rights and security of Lilian Inguto Chitwa, who narrowly escaped what the court concluded was an intentional attempt to set her house ablaze. 

The judge dismissed Omari’s appeal, noting the “positive and credible identification” of the accused and the strength of the circumstantial and testimonial evidence.

“This court finds that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Justice Kavedza stated in her judgment, underlining that citizens must be protected from such reckless and life-threatening actions, especially in residential areas where every person has a right to feel safe.

A community’s right to safety

The events unfolded around 1am on September 23, 2023, in Magade, High-Rise area, Lang’ata sub-county, where Omari and Chitwa were neighbours for nearly two decades. 

According to Chitwa, the only person inside her house at the time, she was suddenly overcome by the smell of petrol before hearing the distinctive sound of a match being struck.

“I looked outside and saw him—Omari—holding a matchbox. He was about to throw it at my house,” she testified, recounting the terrifying moment she saw her neighbour, under the cover of night, attempt to ignite her home. 

Her screams for help drew in other residents, who discovered petrol poured around the house’s perimeter, on the walls, and even a bottle of petrol placed on the roof.

A pattern of threats and intimidation

While the criminal justice system ultimately focused on the attempted arson, the broader context painted a troubling picture of escalating domestic tension, which had begun with repeated threats and financial manipulation. 

Chitwa had previously intervened in Omari’s domestic disputes, often offering support to his wife during difficult moments.

A neighbour confirmed that Omari had taken issue with Chitwa’s involvement, even confiding in him his intent to retaliate. 

“Omari had confided in him, expressing an intention to retaliate against the woman who had intervened,” the witness said. 

Though he admitted he did not see Omari at the scene that night, his warning to him not to act rashly proved chillingly prescient.

A third resident who also rushed to the scene testified that she had heard the accused threaten Chitwa in the past and recognised him running away shortly after the incident. 

Justice and forensic evidence

Police Constable Joshua Mosoti, a police officer based at Lang’ata Police Station, testified that when he arrived at the scene, the smell of petrol was overwhelming.

He recovered a soda bottle containing a flammable substance, later confirmed by forensic analysis to be petrol. 

It was submitted as exhibit 1(a) and became central in connecting Omari to the crime.

The court viewed this evidence as corroborative and compelling.

Justice Kavedza, citing a past case, re-evaluated the trial court’s findings and confirmed that Chitwa’s recognition of the accused was reliable. 

The defence and dismissed appeal

Omari, in his defence, denied any involvement.

He claimed he had traveled on September 15, 2023, for construction work and only returned on September 27, 2023. 

He surrendered himself at the local chief’s camp after learning he was being sought. 

He denied owning the black jacket mentioned by witnesses and criticised the investigation for lacking fingerprint evidence.

However, the court dismissed his alibi as unconvincing. 

Verdict

The sentence, seven years’ imprisonment, was found to be appropriate and not excessive. 

“On sentence, the appellant was sentenced to serve seven years imprisonment. During sentencing, the court considered the pre-sentence report and time spent in custody and exercised discretion,” Justice Kavedza ruled.

"In the premises, I see no reason to interfere with the sentence."