The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered the deceased. The evidence, though circumstantial, was consistent and pointed exclusively to the accused's guilt. Multiple independent witnesses placed the accused with the deceased shortly before her death, and unique items belonging to the deceased were found at the scene. The accused's subsequent conduct, including attempting to dispose of the deceased's property and denying his presence in Mombasa, further implicated him. The court rejected the accused's alibi and denial of his nickname as fabrications. The presence of the accused's white cap at the scene and his attempt to distance himself from the events were considered indicative of guilt. The court held that malice aforethought was established by the intent to commit robbery, as evidenced by the accused's actions. The possible involvement of another suspect did not negate the accused's culpability. The court concluded that the prosecution's case met the legal threshold for conviction on a charge of murder.