NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 11 – The Supreme Court of Kenya has dismissed an appeal filed by Ruth Wanjiku Kamande, popularly known as Miss Lang’ata, who was convicted in 2015 for the murder of her boyfriend, Farid Mohamed Halim.
Following the dismissal of her appeal by the Court of Appeal, Kamande moved to the Supreme Court, urging it to consider the applicability of the doctrine of Battered Woman Syndrome as part of her defence of self-defence.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the issue of Battered Woman Syndrome had not been raised during the trial at the High Court or in the Court of Appeal.
The Court held that legal issues not previously addressed in lower courts cannot be introduced at the Supreme Court level.
Kamande’s appeal was based on claims that the learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider and apply the doctrine of Battered Woman Syndromewhen evaluating whether her actions could be reconciled with self-defence.
She also argued that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal failed to fully assess the defence of self-defence she had advanced, and that the prosecution had not conclusively rebutted the elements of that defence, which she argued should have led to a reduced charge of manslaughter.
In response, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) submitted a replying affidavit arguing that the appeal lacked merit.
The DPP noted that the grounds raised had not been introduced in earlier proceedings. Specifically, there had been no mention of Battered Woman Syndrome, nor was there any medical evidence submitted at trial to indicate that Kamande had experienced prolonged intimate partner violence.
Furthermore, the DPP pointed out that Kamande chose to give an unsworn statement, which meant her claims could not be tested through cross-examination.
The prosecution, represented by Ms. Fredah Mwanza and Ms. Magdalene Ngalyuka, further argued that while the doctrine of Battered Woman Syndrome could, in some cases, inform a defence of insanity or self-defence, the accused bears the burden of proving such a defence on a balance of probabilities.
They added that self-defence requires the accused to show that they perceived an imminent threat and used reasonable force in response, thresholds that the appellant failed to meet. In its determination, the Supreme Court found the appellant’s claims contradictory. It held that Kamande’s evidence depicted a typical romantic relationship rather than one characterized by long-standing abuse.
The Court noted that there was no history of sustained or severe violence brought forth, and the alleged altercation with the deceased appeared to have occurred solely on the day of the incident.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, and Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, and Njoki Ndung’u, also highlighted that Kamande’s choice to give an unsworn statement deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to test her evidence through cross-examination.
The judges further underscored that the doctrine of Battered Woman Syndrome had never been explicitly or implicitly raised during the trial or appellate proceedings, despite being a well-established concept in legal doctrine since the 1970s.
It was only brought up for the first time in the application for certification before the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the appeal to be without merit and affirmed the rulings of the lower courts.
