The High Court has found former Migori Governor Okoth Obado, his former personal assistant Michael Juma Oyamo, and former Migori County Clerk Caspal Ojwang Obiero guilty of the murder of Rongo University student Sharon Otieno and her unborn child.
Delivering the judgment at the Milimani High Court on Thursday, July 23, Justice Cecilia Githua held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the three acted with malice aforethought in the killing of Sharon, bringing to a close one of Kenya’s most high-profile murder trials nearly eight years after the 2018 crime.
“It is therefore my finding that the prosecution has proved its case against the first, second and third accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I consequently find each accused guilty of the offence of murder. Each accused is accordingly convicted,” Justice Githua Judge ruled.
The judgment had initially been scheduled for May 29, 2026, but was postponed to allow the court more time to prepare its decision.
Githua said the financial support and promises allegedly made to Sharon by the first accused, either directly or through PW28 and the second accused, were not genuinely intended to promote her welfare.
According to the judge, the evidence suggests the payments and promises were aimed at persuading Sharon to abandon her plans to publicise her alleged relationship with the first accused.
The judge says the same reasoning applies to the first accused’s alleged promise to buy Sharon a plot and build her a three-bedroom house in Homa Bay, noting that the promise had not been fulfilled before her death.
Justice Githua says that, based on the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, she finds that the first accused had a strong motive to have Sharon killed.
Justice Cecilia Githua says that while impregnating a consenting adult is not a criminal offence, the evidence before the court shows that Sharon Otieno’s pregnancy became the central issue that triggered the events leading to her death.
The judge says her analysis of the prosecution and defence evidence does not support the first accused’s claim that he had accepted the pregnancy and continued supporting Sharon after ending their relationship.
According to Justice Githua, testimony by journalist PW9 and Sharon’s mother (PW30), which she says was not expressly challenged by the first accused, indicated that he allegedly pressured Sharon to terminate the pregnancy and gave her KSh20,000 for that purpose. The judge notes that Sharon declined to do so after receiving advice from her mother.
The judge says the first accused maintained that he ended the relationship after discovering Sharon had allegedly lied to him about her business and family background. However, she notes that he also admitted learning about the pregnancy in March 2018, around the same time he says he terminated the relationship.
Defence Argument on Motive
Justice Cecilia Githua says the defence argued that the prosecution failed to establish any motive linking the accused persons to Sharon Otieno’s death.
The judge says the first accused maintained that although he knew Sharon, he had no reason to kill her.
According to the judgment, the second accused also denied any involvement in Sharon’s death, insisting that while he acted as a liaison between Sharon and the first accused, he had no motive to harm her.
Justice Githua further says the third accused told the court he barely knew Sharon, having met her only once, and denied having any reason to participate in her killing.
The judge is now evaluating whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to link the accused persons to the offence despite their denials.
LIVE: Judge Says Sharon Otieno Murder Case Rests on Circumstantial Evidence
Update: Justice Cecilia Githua says the prosecution’s case against the accused persons is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. She added that none of the 42 prosecution witnesses gave direct evidence on how Sharon Otieno met her death, and no witness testified to having seen the killing take place.
Update: The judge says the court must therefore examine the meaning of circumstantial evidence and determine whether the evidence presented meets the legal threshold required to support a conviction.
Update: According to Justice Githua, circumstantial evidence consists of surrounding facts and circumstances from which a fact in issue may reasonably be inferred.
Update: The judge explains that unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence does not directly establish the fact being proved but relies on a chain of logical conclusions drawn from the available facts.
Update: The court says the Evidence Act does not create a distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence when it comes to admissibility.
Update: Justice Githua notes that both direct and circumstantial evidence can form the basis of a conviction, provided the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.
LIVE: Judge Sets Out Legal Test the Prosecution Must Meet in Sharon Otieno Murder Case
Update: The judge says the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the three accused persons, either individually or jointly with others, committed the offence of murder.
Update: The court is now addressing the legal ingredients required to prove a murder charge under Sections 203 and 206 of the Penal Code.
Update: The judge says murder is committed when a person, with malice aforethought, causes the death of another person through an unlawful act or omission.
Update: According to the judgment, the prosecution must prove three key elements before securing a conviction: the death of the deceased and its cause, that the accused caused the unlawful act leading to the death, and that the accused acted with malice aforethought.
Update: The judge cites the Court of Appeal decision in Anthony Ndegwa Gari v Republic, which outlined the three elements that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
Update: The court says the key issues for determination are proof of the deceased’s death, proof that the death resulted from an unlawful act, and proof that the accused persons committed the unlawful act with malice aforethought.
Update: The judge explains that a crime requires both a criminal act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea) for liability to arise.
Update: The judge says that in a murder charge, the unlawful taking of another person’s life forms the actus reus, while malice aforethought constitutes the required guilty mind.
Update: The court hears that malice aforethought refers to a state of mind showing culpability or moral blameworthiness in committing the act.
Update: The judge says Section 206 of the Penal Code provides circumstances through which malice aforethought can be established.
Update: These include an intention to cause death or grievous harm, knowledge that an act or omission is likely to cause death or grievous harm, an intention to commit a felony, or an intention to facilitate the escape of a person who has committed or attempted to commit a felony.
LIVE: Discovery of Sharon Otieno’s Body and Items Recovered at Scene
Update: The judge says the second accused claimed that on the evening of September 5, 2018, he was at Plaza Hotel with a woman named Sharon.
Update: The court hears that on the same period, on September 4, 2018, at around 3pm, Sharon’s body was discovered in a bush near Kawaderi River by Moses Oditi Okuta, a resident of the area.
Update: The judge says Moses Oditi, who testified as PW7, was herding cattle towards a nearby school when he came across Sharon’s body. He reported the discovery at Elubi Police Station.
Update: According to the judgment, police officers Mary Mugire (PW18) and Peter Ndiki accompanied Oditi to the scene, where members of the public had already gathered.
Update: The judge says PW18 conducted preliminary investigations at the scene, recovered items believed to have belonged to Sharon and prepared an inventory of the exhibits collected.
Update: The court hears that the recovered items included Sharon’s clothes, open shoes, two used condoms, three sachets of Trust condoms, two cover packets of Trust condoms and a sachet containing pills.
Update: The judge says Mary Mugire and PC Zamini Diki, after completing the preliminary investigations, collected Sharon’s body and moved it to Rachuonyo District Hospital for preservation.
12:35 LIVE: Evidence on Meetings and Payments Linked to Sharon’s Case
Lawrence Owor (PW28) testified that after Sharon accepted a proposal allegedly made to her, he communicated her acceptance to the first accused. According to the judgment, the first accused allegedly promised to provide money for the purchase of a plot and construction of a house by the end of August 2018.
On August 23, 2018, journalist SYC (PW9) received a call from Sharon informing him that the first accused, together with the second accused, had requested to meet them in Nairobi. PW9 contacted the second accused, who confirmed the information and allegedly said the first accused would cater for their transport costs.
The court hears that at about 2am on August 24, 2018, PW9 received KSh22,000 through M-Pesa from a woman identified as Veronica Wageshi (PW4).
PW4, who was working as a receptionist at Scarlet Hotel in Nairobi, testified that on August 23, 2018, an unidentified man asked her to send KSh22,210 through her Safaricom line to PW9’s mobile number because he did not have a Safaricom line.
According to the judge, the second accused admitted sending the money to PW9 through PW4 to facilitate travel for Sharon and PW9 to Nairobi for the planned meeting.
Update: The judge says evidence from PW5 and PW9 showed that Sharon and PW9 travelled on an early morning flight from Kisumu to Nairobi on August 24, 2018.
Update: Upon arrival in Nairobi, the judge says they met the second accused at Capital Centre, who arranged accommodation for them and allegedly tried to organise a meeting with the first accused.
Update: The judge says Sharon and PW9 were unaware that the second accused had also facilitated the travel of Lawrence Mula to Nairobi on the same day, allegedly for the same planned meeting with the first accused.
Update: The court hears that the planned meeting did not happen, leaving Sharon, PW9 and Lawrence Mula disappointed. The judge says the three later returned to Homa Bay the following evening.
LIVE: Evidence on Sharon Otieno’s Pregnancy
12:20: The judge says Sharon Otieno told her mother that she met the first accused in Nairobi, where he allegedly said he was not ready for the pregnancy and urged her to terminate it. According to the judgment, Sharon said the first accused gave her KSh30,000 for an abortion and directed her to deal with the second accused on matters relating to the pregnancy. The judge notes that Sharon later decided to keep the pregnancy after advice from her mother.
12:15: The judge recounts evidence by prosecution witness Lawrence Owor (PW28), who testified that Sharon approached him at a hotel in Homa Bay on July 20, 2015, seeking financial assistance. Owor told the court that Sharon later asked him to recommend a journalist who could help publicise her story in the mainstream media so that the first accused would give her the attention she felt she deserved.
12:10: The judge says Owor arranged a meeting between Sharon and a journalist on July 25, 2015 at Shwalis Hotel in Homa Bay. The journalist, who testified as a protected witness under the pseudonym SYC, told the court that Sharon said she had been in an intimate relationship with the first accused, who had allegedly abandoned her after she became pregnant. At the time, Sharon was seven months pregnant and facing financial difficulties.
Update: According to the judge, the journalist testified that Sharon wanted her story published to pressure the first accused into responding to her. The court hears that Sharon shared photographs, screenshots of WhatsApp conversations and two audio recordings allegedly involving the first accused.
Update: The judge says the journalist testified that in one audio recording, the first accused allegedly pleaded with Sharon to stop posting photographs of the two of them, particularly pictures taken at hotels they had visited, on social media. In another recording, the first accused allegedly urged Sharon to terminate the pregnancy, saying time was running out.
Update: The judge says the journalist later sought the first accused’s side of the story through a mutual friend before publishing the story. According to the judgment, the first accused later invited the journalist and Lawrence Owor to his home, where they discussed Sharon’s pregnancy.
Update: The judge says the first accused allegedly acknowledged knowing about the pregnancy but complained that Sharon’s demands were unrealistic. According to the judgment, he claimed Sharon wanted a house in Nairobi, a vehicle and a job.
Update: The court hears that the journalist informed the first accused that Sharon had instructed him to publish details of their alleged relationship if her demands were not met. The judge says the first accused allegedly asked Lawrence Owor to engage Sharon and determine what she wanted, and directed that future communication regarding the pregnancy be handled through the second accused.
Update: The judge says the journalist testified that, as the meeting ended, the first accused allegedly instructed him not to disclose Sharon’s pregnancy to anyone. A few days later, the second accused allegedly informed the journalist that Sharon’s matter had been resolved.
Update: The judge further recounts Lawrence Owor’s testimony that he later met the first accused in Nairobi and relayed Sharon’s alleged demands, including between KSh20 million and KSh25 million to buy a house in Nairobi, acquire a vehicle and provide for her upkeep.
How the Sharon Otieno Murder Case Unfolded
Ahead of the judgment, the Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya) said it was standing with Sharon Otieno’s family and expressed confidence that the High Court would determine the case based solely on the evidence presented and the law.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, FIDA-Kenya said it had closely followed the case since Sharon’s death and continued to support her family in their pursuit of justice.
“FIDA-Kenya is watching brief for Sharon Otieno’s family and has continued to stand with them throughout the judicial process as they seek justice for the tragic loss of their daughter and her unborn child,” the organisation said.
Also Read: Obado Walks Free as Court Allows Withdrawal of KSh73.4 Million Graft Case Against Him
Sharon was abducted on September 3, 2018. Her body, together with that of her unborn child, was found the following day in a thicket near Kodera Forest in Homa Bay County.
The killings sparked national outrage and drew widespread public attention.
Okoth Obado, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero were subsequently charged with her murder. They denied charges.
During the trial, the High Court ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case and placed the three accused on their defence.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) called 42 witnesses during the trial, relying on witness testimony and electronic evidence, including SMS messages, WhatsApp conversations and mobile phone records.
According to FIDA-Kenya, the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW9 and PW38 placed one of the accused among the last people seen with Sharon before her death.
Also Read: Sharon Otieno: Tragic Story of Rongo University Student Whose 2018 Murder Shocked Kenya
ODPP Says Evidence Proved Murder Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In its final submissions, ODPP urged the High Court to convict former Migori Governor Okoth Obado, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero, arguing that it had proved the murder case beyond reasonable doubt.
Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Gikui Gichuhi told the court that the evidence presented during the trial established a coordinated plan involving the three accused.
“The totality of the evidence fits together seamlessly. It forms a single, coherent picture pointing to the guilt of the accused persons,” Gichuhi submitted.
The prosecution argued that Obado, Oyamo and Obiero acted with a common intention to kill Sharon Otieno in order to shield themselves from political and personal consequences.
According to the prosecution, witness testimony, mobile phone records, cybercrime analysis and forensic evidence linked the three accused to the murder.
The court heard that Sharon and another prosecution witness were abducted from Graca Hotel on the night of September 3, 2018, with the prosecution alleging that Oyamo and Obiero played active roles in facilitating the abduction that preceded Sharon’s killing.
The hearing spanned several years, with proceedings delayed at different stages by disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in court operations.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
