High Court Judge Cecilia Githua delivers judgment in the Sharon Otieno muder trial at the Milimani Law Courts on Thursday, July 23, 2026. /SCREENGRAB
The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed arguments by Michael Oyamo, former Personal Assistant to former Migori Governor Zachary Okoth Obado, that he should be acquitted of Sharon Otieno's murder because he had no motive to kill her.
In his written defence, Oyamo maintained that his role in matters involving Sharon was limited to that of a messenger.
He argued that he merely conveyed money and information on behalf of Obado, whom DNA tests established was the father of Sharon's unborn child.
Co-accused Caspal Ojwang Obiero, the former Migori county Clerk, also told the court that he barely knew Sharon, having met her only once before her murder in September 2018.
Obiero argued that he therefore had no reason to participate in her killing.
However, while delivering judgment at the Milimani Law Courts on Thursday, High Court Judge Cecilia Githua rejected the argument that the prosecution had to prove motive in order to sustain a murder charge.
"Motive, simply put, is the reason for committing an offence," she said, citing Section 9(3) of the Penal Code.
The provision states that unless expressly provided by law, the motive that induces a person to do or omit an act, or to form an intention, is immaterial in determining criminal responsibility.
Justice Githua cited the Court of Appeal decision in Limabula vs Republic, which held that proof of motive is not essential in proving a criminal offence, although it may be relevant, particularly in cases founded on circumstantial evidence.
She also relied on the appellate court's decision in Robert Onchiri Ogeto vs Republic, which found that motive is not a necessary ingredient in proving malice aforethought in murder cases.
Quoting the decision, the judge said the prosecution is not required to prove why an accused person committed a crime, and that the existence of a motive alone is equally insufficient to establish guilt.
Instead, she noted, Section 206 of the Penal Code provides that malice aforethought is established through evidence showing an intention to cause death or grievous harm, knowledge that an act is likely to cause death, or an intention connected to the commission of a felony.
Justice Githua observed that in the Onchiri case, the accused was convicted of murder after fatally stabbing the victim in the chest despite the prosecution not proving any motive.
Turning to the Sharon Otieno case, the judge said the prosecution's case rests on the doctrine of common intention rather than on proving the individual motives of each accused person.
She noted that the doctrine is codified under Section 21 of the Penal Code, which provides that where two or more people form a common intention to pursue an unlawful purpose and, in carrying out that purpose, an offence is committed, each participant is deemed to have committed the offence.
Justice Githua further cited the Court of Appeal decision in Njoroge vs Republic, which held that common intention does not require proof of an express agreement between the accused persons.
Instead, she said, it may be inferred from their conduct and participation before, during and after the commission of the offence.
The judge added that even minimal participation can attract full criminal responsibility if it is undertaken in furtherance of a shared criminal intention.
That, she said, is the legal basis upon which the court assessed the role of each accused person in Sharon Otieno's murder.
"Section 20 of the Penal Code provides that criminal liability applies equally to all persons who actually committ the act constituting the offence and to persons who aids or abates another person in committing the offence, or procures another person to committ an offence."
