Republic of Kenya v. Jackson Namunya Tali

This case summary and analysis was prepared in partnership with the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme of the University of Toronto and the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria for Legal Grounds III: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts.

Download Case

Summary of Facts
Analysis and Decision

Jackson Namunya Tali (“the Accused”), was charged with murder under Sections 203 and 204 of the Kenyan Penal Code. The Accused, a nurse by profession, operated a medical clinic known as the M.P. Medical Clinic & Laboratory Services, at the Gachie Trading Centre in Kiambu County, Kenya. In July 2009, he allegedly assisted one of his patients, Christine Atieno, to procure an abortion which resulted in complications that led to her death.

At issue in this case was whether the Accused was responsible for Christine Atieno’s (“the Deceased”) injuries during an “interference with pregnancy” that ultimately led to her death.

Although a medical expert testified that he was unable to determine the cause of the death, the Court found that there was direct and circumstantial evidence that the immediate cause of death was the bleeding due to interference with the pregnancy. Once the Court concretely clarified the cause of death, they examined whether the Accused or someone else had interfered with the pregnancy.

The Accused stated that the Deceased sought medical attention at his clinic following a botched abortion completed elsewhere, and, by merely treating her injuries, he was not responsible for her death. The Accused admitted to administering some form of treatment, but he did not produce a patient record to substantiate his claim that she was already bleeding and anemic upon arrival.

The Court’s believed that the Deceased was admitted to the Accused’s clinic while not bleeding and later left the clinic bleeding. However the Court did not explain how the evidence supported this conclusion. Nevertheless, the Court held that unless the Accused offered a plausible explanation, it could only be inferred that the Accused was responsible for the Deceased’s death. The Accused’s explanation did not convince the Court that he had not interfered with the pregnancy in a way that led to complications and death. Despite the lack of direct evidence, the Court held that all of the direct and circumstantial evidence established that the Deceased had sought procurement of abortion from the Accused, and by assisting her, caused her to develop fatal complications.

Therefore, the Accused was convicted of murder as charged, and sentenced to death.