173 African Study Monographs, 38 (4): 173–220, December 2017 HOMICIDE COMPENSATION IN AN ÎGEMBE COMMUNITY IN KENYA, 2001–2015: FIFTEEN YEARS OF CLAN MAKING IN A LOCAL CONTEXT Shin-ichiro ISHIDA Department of Social Anthropology, Tokyo Metropolitan University ABSTRACT This paper describes three cases of homicide compensation in a local farming community of the Îgembe, one of nine sub-groups of the Kîmîîrû-speaking people in the Kenyan central highlands. These cases were observed from 2001 to 2015. According to Îgembe indigenous law, the clan is the primary entity for transacting matters related to homicide com- pensation. In these cases, the agnatic Athimba clan was involved as a party in various ways. The Athimba people organised a compensation process during inter-clan negotiations with their counterpart clan, and in cooperation with the other two indigenous institutions of the Amîîrû community: the îchiaro brotherhood and the Njûriîncheke council of elders. While all three cases were discontinued without reaching a conclusion, the Athimba clan has accumulated knowledge of Îgembe indigenous law from its experiences with homicide compensation; at the same time, the Athimba have developed a sense of clanship over the past ffteen years. Their ffteen years of experiences were informed by a widely shared structural history, and the re- gional politics of the Îgembe community. While their situations required that they take action as a clan, their unity was not something already given, but something that had yet to be achieved and was often disputed. Key Words: Homicide compensation; Clanship; Indigenous law; Îgembe, Kenya. INTRODUCTION Since September 2001, I have observed four cases of homicide compensation (kûrea kîongo; literally ‘to pay a head’) in a local farming community of the Îgembe, one of nine sub-groups of the Kîmîîrû-speaking people or the Amîîrû (Ameru) in the Kenyan central highlands. Under Kenya’s criminal laws, homicide is an ofense to be prosecuted and judged in the state law courts. Nevertheless, the concerned parties may seek additional means to achieve peace and justice, (1) especially when homicide occurs between neighbours within a locality. (2) Lambert (1956: 115–120), Middleton & Kershaw (1965), Rimita (1988: 76–77), and M’Imanyara (1992: 91–93) provided illustrations of homicide compensation in the greater Amîîrû community. Although the above works provide information relevant to this paper, it seems that they are too generalised to be directly appli- cable. I agree with Richard Abel’s critical comment on rule-oriented approaches and his claims for the case method; ‘few, if any, of the numerous ethnographic accounts contain any descriptions of actual cases. Either investigators failed to observe or to inquire about cases, or else they deleted all information about the actual controversies from their reports’ (Abel, 1969: 574). Abel made this com- ment while quoting as an example Charles Dundas’s documentation of homicide