Appellate court acquits man serving 20-year sentence

The court of appeal in Nakuru has acquitted a man serving a 20-year sentence for the murder of a Samburu businessman six years ago, citing improper identification procedures.

Peter Lenangetei, 39, was convicted after being found guilty of killing Livingstone Nyota on March 23, 2020, along the Loruko-Baragoi highway in Samburu.

Justices Mohamed Warsame, John Mativo, and Paul Gachoka released Lenangetei after determining that the lower court failed to properly consider the identification process.

"Looking at the totality of the evidence presented, we conclude that the judge made an incorrect decision in holding that the identification parade did not meet legal standards," the judges stated.

It is alleged that Lenangetei staged the attack, shooting at Nyota, a businessman who was driving his lorry with two loaders.

Lenangetei was arrested two months later, reportedly by detectives, based on witnesses who said he was riding a black motorcycle.

He was sentenced to 20 years by the Nyandarua High Court in September 2023 after one witness identified him as one of the attackers who killed Nyota.

Lenangetei appealed his sentence to the Nakuru Court of Appeal, arguing that the evidence against him was scant, unreliable, and insufficient.

He claimed that the key witnesses did not provide detailed descriptions in their statements and that the murder weapon was never recovered.

The loaders testified they were delivering goods to customers, starting from Loruko, South Horr, and Lonjorin.

They reported that two motorcycles had been trailing them throughout the journey. As they returned and drove past the Loruko Police Post, their vehicle was shot at.

It suddenly stopped, one loader escaped, and the other was captured and marched by the attackers, who identified him as Lenangetei, a rider he had known for eight years. The prosecution alleges Nyota was killed, and H300,000 was stolen.

The judges determined that Lenangetei’s conviction based on a single, unreliable identification was insufficient. Warsame, Mativo, and Gachoka also noted concerns about the credibility of the postmortem report produced by the investigating officer, suggesting it should have been rejected.

"It is for these reasons that we find reason to interfere with the trial’s findings, as we are not satisfied that the conviction was safe," the judges concluded.