Supreme Court dismisses Ruth Kamande’s appeal in murder conviction

Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Ruth Kamande, who was in 2015 convicted of killing her boyfriend Farid Mohamed Halim through stabbing.

Kamande had moved to the apex court urging the judges to consider her appeal based on 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.

In a statement on Friday, April 11, 2025, the Office of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions said 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 Syndrome when 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,” ODPP stated.

“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.”

According to the ODPP, Kamande chose to give an unsworn statement, which meant her claims could not be tested through cross-examination. ODPP argued in court 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.

ODPP said 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,” ODPP stated

“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.”