Brother’s keeper or killer? Man acquitted in farm row

What began as a petty land boundary quarrel over a kale farm between two brothers ended in bloodshed. One is now dead, the other stood trial for murder. But a judge saw something deeper: fear, not malice, freeing him.

Samson Waweru, accused of murdering his brother Benson Waweru during a fight over land in Nyandarua, was acquitted after the High Court ruled that he acted in self-defence during a violent confrontation between the two in an incident that occurred on September 30, 2021, in Rwanyambo village, Kinangop South.

According to the court records, the brothers owned adjacent pieces of land. On this day, Samson was weeding his kale while Benson supervised a tractor ploughing his own plot. But trouble began when Benson ordered the tractor driver to extend the ploughing into the section of land where Samson had planted kale.

When Samson objected and stopped the driver, a bitter argument broke out between the two. Benson, armed with a machete, reportedly struck Samson on the forehead. In response, Samson used the hoe he had been weeding with, and Benson fell.

The incident escalated quickly—and tragically. The prosecution charged Samson with murder, alleging that he intentionally killed his brother during the fight.

But during the trial, the court heard consistent testimony indicating that Benson was the aggressor. The tractor driver, Joel Mwaura, testified that he had been hired by the deceased and was instructed to plough into the disputed area. He confirmed that Benson was armed with a machete and was the first to attack Samson.

In his judgment dated June 18, 2025, Justice Kiarie Waweru noted that the facts strongly supported a case of self-defence.

“When the deceased cut the accused and attempted to strike again, the accused raised his injured hand, which placed him in immediate peril. His reaction was natural; he was defending himself,” the judge said.

Justice Kiarie drew upon established principles of English Common Law, which Kenya's Penal Code allows in self-defence cases. He cited the precedent-setting case R v McInnes, where it was ruled that self-defence must be reasonable and proportionate—but the response of a person in immediate danger must also be understood in the context of fear and urgency.

“It is both good law and common sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself… If the moment is one of crisis, he may have to avert danger by some instant reaction,” the court noted.

Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt, the judge acquitted Samson and ordered his immediate release.

“The deceased was the aggressor; although his death is regrettable, it cannot be blamed on the accused at all,” the judge concluded.

With the ruling, the court brought to a close a painful family tragedy—one that turned a routine day on the farm into a fatal misunderstanding and nearly cost a man his freedom along with his brother.