[2024] KEHC 2253 (KLR)
The court, after considering the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Judah Kirimi Mugambi and Moses Gitonga Mboroki. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 2253 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Judah Kirimi Mugambi; Defendant: Moses Gitonga Mboroki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 93 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their 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
Judah Kirimi Mugambi
Defendant
Moses Gitonga Mboroki
Defendant
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 persons to warrant them being placed on their defence for the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Judah Kirimi Mugambi and Moses Gitonga Mboroki. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation is offered by the defence. Consequently, the accused persons were found to have a case to answer and were placed on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also ensured that the accused were informed of their constitutional rights under Article 50(2)(i)(j)(k).
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their defence.
Orders
- The accused persons, Judah Kirimi Mugambi and Moses Gitonga Mboroki, are found to have a case to answer and are placed on their 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 their advocate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Director of Public Prosecutions v Mugambi & another (Criminal Case 93 of 2018) [2024] KEHC 2253 (KLR) (29 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 2253 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 93 of 2018
TW Cherere, J
February 29, 2024
Between
Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecution
and
Judah Kirimi Mugambi
1st Accused
Moses Gitonga Mboroki
2nd Accused
Ruling
1. Judah Kirimi Mugambi and Moses Gitonga Mboroki (Accused 2 and 3 respectively) were joinly charged with another that died with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code in that they murdered one Stephen Kiarie on the night of 5th and 6th October, 2018 at Kooje area in Imenti North Sub County within Meru County.
2. Accused persons denied the offence of Murder and the prosecution has called a total of three witnesses and closed its case on 20th February, 2024.
3. The issue for determination is whether, based on the evidence adduced by the three prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused persons to be placed on their defence to answer to the charge of Murder.
4. In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt Vs 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 persons to be placed on their defence. I therefore find that the accused persons namely Judah Kirimi Mugambi and Moses Gitonga Mboroki have a case to answer.
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 persons in the presence of their advocate Mr. Mwanzia.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneAccused - PresentFor the Accused - Mr.Mwanzia AdvocateFor the State - Ms. Rita Rotich (PC 1)