[2024] KEHC 2252 (KLR)
Upon consideration of the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses, the court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Julius Michubu for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 2252 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Julius Michubu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 72 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure, Burden of Proof
- 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
Julius Michubu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence for the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon consideration of the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses, the court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Julius Michubu for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation was offered by the defence. Consequently, the accused was found to have a case to answer and was placed on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also explained the accused's constitutional rights under Article 50(2)(i)(j)(k) of the Constitution.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused Julius Michubu is found to have a case to answer and is placed on his defence.
- The provisions of Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2)(i)(j)(k) of the Constitution are explained to the accused in the presence of his advocate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Director of Public Prosecutions v Michubu (Criminal Case 72 of 2017) [2024] KEHC 2252 (KLR) (29 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 2252 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 72 of 2017
TW Cherere, J
February 29, 2024
Between
Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor
and
Julius Michubu
Accused
Ruling
1. Julius Michubu (Accused) is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code in that he murdered one Murungi M’Kirari on 09th September, 2013 at Ndumuru village in Baiborio sub-location in Igembe North Sub County within Meru County.
2. The accused has denied committing the offence of Murder as charged and the prosecution has called a total of three witnesses and closed its case on 20th February, 2024.
3. This court is therefore called upon to determine whether, at this stage, based on the evidence adduced by the three prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused person to be placed on his defence to answer to the charge of Murder.
4. In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 335, the court stated as follows:“……..It 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, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence”.
5. Having considered the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established against to warrant Accused to be placed on his defence. I therefore find that the accused herein Julius Michubu has a case to answer and is therefore placed on his defence.
6. The provisions of Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2)(i)(j)(k) of the Constitution are hereby explained to the accused person in the presence of his advocate Ms. Gumato.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 29th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneAccused - PresentFor the Accused - Ms. Gumato AdvocateFor the State - Ms. Rita Rotich (PC 1)