Woman who killed another in love triangle freed after 9 years

LIVING as neighbours in Awasi, Kisumu county, toxic rivalry always ran between Dorothy Juma and Irene Awuor like a charged current.

Their animosity simmered for years, flaring up in constant insults and open hostility. On the evening of January 10, 2016, the hate exploded like a potent keg.

The jealousy and a bitter love triangle not only resulted in bloody fight and death but also cost Juma nine years in prison until July 31, 2025, when the Court of Appeal freed her.

On the fateful day, according to court papers, Awour allegedly lured Juma to her home by pretending to be ill. But instead she launched a verbal attack, calling Juma a prostitute and grabbing her by the collar. A fight broke out.

Juma claimed Awour was armed with a knife and during the brawl, Awour fell on the blade. The stab wound to her chest punctured a lung. She later died while receiving medical treatment.

Juma was arrested and charged with murder. She pleaded not guilty, insisting she acted in self-defence. The prosecution, however, framed her as the aggressor—driven by jealousy and resentment from a long-standing romantic entanglement.

The court acknowledged that the fight stemmed from deep emotional tensions. After a full trial, Juma was convicted of manslaughter on April 19, 2018.

The trial judge recognised that Juma had been provoked and believed she was in danger—but still, a life was lost. She was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Juma appealed, arguing the trial court failed to fully consider her mitigation: that she was a remorseful first-time offender, a young mother, and had already spent over two years in remand before sentencing. Her pre-sentence report was favourable, and even Awour’s family had acknowledged the deceased’s combative personality. Yet, the sentencing made little mention of any of this.

The prosecution defended the sentence, pointing out that manslaughter carries a maximum of life imprisonment. But the Court of Appeal found merit in Juma’s arguments.

In a judgment delivered on July 31, 2025, the appellate court ruled that the trial judge had failed to consider key mitigating factors. The court noted that the judge had relied only on the probation and victim impact reports and had not taken into account Juma’s personal circumstances, including her early life struggles and role as a young mother. It also found that the trial court failed to apply Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which required the deduction of her time spent in remand from the sentence.

Having served nine years in total, the appellate court ruled that Juma had been punished sufficiently. It set aside the 15-year sentence and substituted it with time served, ordering her immediate release.