Man poisoned son and three nephews

Kiambu, Kenya: He invited four children to his house and served them a cream-like substance that he said was a de-worming concoction.

Ndumberi village in Kiambu County would, however, wake up to the news that four children had been poisoned with a pesticide.

But why would the man poison his son and three of his nephews? This is the puzzle that has disturbed the village for seven years now.

And although Bernard Kungu is cooling his heels in prison after being found guilty of murder – one of the children died – the shock waves of the bizarre incident that happened on July 19, 2008 are still palpable in the village.

Details of the bewildering incident emerged during the hearing of Kungu's murder trial at the Nairobi High Court before Justice Fred Ochieng'.

The three children who survived the incident recounted how on the material day, Kungu asked them to drink the substance, which he said would kill worm in their tummies. He then cleaned the cups and ordered the children out of his house.

But hours later, the children started to vomit and diarrhoea and were rushed to Kiambu District Hospital, where one of them passed away.

Justice Ochieng' sentenced the suspect to death prompting him to move to the Court of Appeal in Nairobi.

But appellate judges GBM Kariuki, Mohammed Warsame and David Maraga upheld the death sentence, arguing that the evidence of the three children who survived the ordeal had proved that it was Kungu who had indeed given them poison to ingest.

"Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that the death was intended, and that malice aforethought was present the moment that the appellant administered the alleged de-worming medicine," ruled the judges.

Kungu had argued that on the material day he was working at a construction site when he heard of the tragedy that had befallen the children; he denied poisoning them.

He also invited a witness, one Johnson Njuguna, the foreman at the construction site who testified that he asked Kungu to rush to hospital and check on the children after they learnt that they had been taken ill.

But the judges quashed the evidence arguing that the facts of the case proved that the children ingested poison at the appellant's house resulting in their illness.

"The result of our findings is that the conviction of the appellant was based on sound and credible evidence," ruled the judges.