[2024] KEHC 5522 (KLR)
Upon evaluating the evidence of the nineteen prosecution witnesses, the court found that a prima facie case had only been established against the 5th accused, Lochuku Lekepie. The evidence against accused 1, 2, 3, and 4 was insufficient to warrant putting them on their defence. The court applied the standard set out...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5522 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Ltaningoi Lenemita alias Willy Samson Lesingira alias Yusuf Kerow; Defendant: Sikitaat Leparmorijo Alias Lentook; Defendant: Peter Mitiran Lekolua; Defendant: Raeli Lenngo Alias Lephariari; Defendant: Lochuku Lekepie
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 29 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(1) Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- Accused 1, 2, 3, and 4 acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code; Accused 5 found to have a case to answer and called to defend himself.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions
Applicant
Ltaningoi Lenemita alias Willy Samson Lesingira alias Yusuf Kerow
Defendant
Sikitaat Leparmorijo Alias Lentook
Defendant
Peter Mitiran Lekolua
Defendant
Raeli Lenngo Alias Lephariari
Defendant
Lochuku Lekepie
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(1) Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against each accused person to warrant being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence to require the accused persons to answer to the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon evaluating the evidence of the nineteen prosecution witnesses, the court found that a prima facie case had only been established against the 5th accused, Lochuku Lekepie. The evidence against accused 1, 2, 3, and 4 was insufficient to warrant putting them on their defence. The court applied the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R, requiring more than a mere scintilla of evidence and emphasizing that the prosecution must establish a case on which a reasonable tribunal could convict if no defence is offered. Accordingly, under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court acquitted accused 1, 2, 3, and 4 and set them at liberty, while calling upon accused 5 to...
Court Disposition
Accused 1, 2, 3, and 4 acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code; Accused 5 found to have a case to answer and called to defend himself.
Orders
- Accused 1, 2, 3, and 4 are found not guilty and are hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
- Accused 5 is called upon to defend himself against the charge of murder.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lenemita alias Willy Samson Lesingira alias Yusuf Kerow & 4 others (Criminal Case 29 of 2019) [2024] KEHC 5522 (KLR) (18 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5522 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 29 of 2019
TW Cherere, J
April 18, 2024
Between
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor
and
Ltaningoi Lenemita alias Willy Samson Lesingira alias Yusuf Kerow
1st Accused
Sikitaat Leparmorijo Alias Lentook
2nd Accused
Peter Mitiran Lekolua
3rd Accused
Raeli Lenngo Alias Lephariari
4th Accused
Lochuku Lekepie
5th Accused
Ruling
1. Ltaningoi Lenemita alias Willy Samson Lesingira alias Yusuf Kerow, Sikitaat Leparmorijo alias Lentook, Peter Mitiran Lekolua, Raeli Lenngo alias Lephariari, and Lochuku Lekepie are jointly charged with the offence of Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.The particulars of the information are that on the night of 23rd and 24th July, 2015 at Mlima Chui in Oldonyoro, Isiolo North sub-county within Isiolo County murdered Morris Munene Mate
2. Accused persons denied committing the offence and the prosecution called a total of nineteen (19) witnesses in support of their case.
3. Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as hereunder:When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or any one of several accused committed the offence shall, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
4. At this stage, the court is being called upon to decide whether or not the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused persons that would warrant this court to call upon them to give their defence. In Republic vs. Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013] eKLR a prima facie case was defined as follows:Prima facie” is a Latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition as “Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. “Prima facie case” is defined by the same dictionary as “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption”. To digest this further, in simple terms, it means the establishment of a rebuttal presumption that an accused person is guilty of the offence he/she is charged with. In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335, the court stated as follows:“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one “which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence…It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
5. I have considered the evidence tendered by the nineteen (19) prosecution witnesses and I am persuaded that a primafcie case has been established that warrants this court to call upon the Accused 5 to defend himself.
6. Under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and for reasons to be given later in the judgment, Accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 are found NOT GUILTY and are hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS** 18th DAY OF April__ 2024__WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneAccused 1 - PresentAccused 2 - PresentAccused 3 - PresentAccused 4 - PresentAccused 5 - PresentFor Accused 1 - Ms. Nelima/Mr. Igweta AdvocateFor Accused 2 & 5 - Ms. Nelima/Mr. Igweta AdvocateFor Accused 3 - Mr. Otieno C. AdvocateFor Accused 4 - Mr. Lekoona AdvocateFor DPP - Ms. Rita Rotich (PC-1)Page 3 of 4