[2025] KEHC 2042 (KLR)
The court, after reviewing the evidence of the five prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard articulated in Chai v Republic [2022] KECA 495, the court held that the evidence presented could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 2042 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Zachary Muriungi M’’rinkanya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E010 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and is called upon to make 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
Zachary Muriungi M’’rinkanya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
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
The court, after reviewing the evidence of the five prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard articulated in Chai v Republic [2022] KECA 495, the court held that the evidence presented could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict if the accused offered no explanation. Consequently, the accused was called upon to make his defence under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and is called upon to make his defence.
Orders
- The accused is hereby called upon to make his defence under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Director of Public Prosecutions v M’’rinkanya (Criminal Case E010 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 2042 (KLR) (6 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 2042 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case E010 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
February 6, 2025
Between
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor
and
Zachary Muriungi M’’rinkanya
Accused
Ruling
1. Zachary Muriungi M’’Rinkanya (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 Judith Kathambi on 11th January, 2023
2. Accused denied committing the offence of and the prosecution called a total of five witness in support of its case.
3. This court is called upon to determine whether a primafacie case has been established to warrant the Accused person to be placed on his defence to answer to the charge of murder.
4. The Court of Appeal in Chai v Republic [2022] KECA 495 underscored the position that a prima facie case is one where the evidence presented could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict if the accused offers no explanation.
5. Upon reviewing the evidence of the five prosecution witnesses, the court determines that a prima facie case has been established.
6. Consequently, under the provisions of Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby called upon to make his defence.
DATED THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025WAMAE.T.W. CHEREREJUDGEDELIVERED AT MERU THIS 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025H.M. NYAGAJUDGEThis ruling is delivered under the provisiosn of Section 200(1) as read with Section 201 (2 of the Criminal Procedure CodeAPOLOGY FOR DELAY IN DELIVERING RULINGThe delay in delivering this ruling was due unfortunate accident involving the judge who initially presided over the matter, which necessitated an unavoidable deferment in the judicial process. The court sincerely regrets inconveniences and uncertainty this delay has caused to all parties. The Judiciary remains steadfast in its commitment to the timely and fair dispensation of justice.