https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10626

Republic v Adede (Criminal Case E013 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10626 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10626 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Siaya Criminal Case E013 of 2024 DK Kemei, J July 17, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and George Ochieng Adede Accused Ruling 1.The accused herein, George Otieno Adede has been charged with an offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on the 7th day of May 2024, Nyangoma Division, Bondo Sub County within Siaya County, murdered one Sween Awino. 2.The accused denied the charge and that the prosecution called eleven (11) witnesses in support of its case. 3.The prosecution’s case is that sometimes in the month of March 2024 the accused herein contacted Samuel Anthony Majera (PW1) a former teacher with whom he had gotten acquainted earlier when they served as teachers at St Mary’s school in Eldoret and sought him to help host the deceased herein as she had been a child in need of care and protection as she had been abused by some of his relatives. That the said PW1 agreed to host the said girl who then stayed with his granddaughter for some time before the accused came back to pick the girl and later police officers visited the home to make enquiries about the girl and it was then that he learnt that the accused had misled him about the girl as it turned out that the accused had later murdered the girl. It was also the evidence of Nicole Atieno Omondi (PW2) that she lived with the deceased for some time and that the accused herein kept on visiting the girl and later took her away. It was also the evidence of Charles Owino Rating (PW3) that he received a report on 2/5/2024 that someone was being looked for over the disappearance of a certain girl and that the suspect was at the home of PW1 and that he visited the said home but did not find the owner and met with the accused herein and that he confronted him with the issue of the missing girl only for the accused to sprint away but was apprehended and escorted to Bondo Police station. It was also the evidence of Joyce Akuku Mware (PW4) that the deceased was her niece and that she had disappeared only to be traced at the home of the accused herein and that she was later surprised to learn that her niece had been killed.. Pauline Adhiambo Mware (PW5) stated that PW4 was her sister who lived with the minor and that she had known the accused as a teacher at Milenga primary school where the deceased schooled and that the accused was her teacher and that he was later linked with the death of the girl. It was also the evidence of Jane Akinyi Ogutu (PW6) who was an aunt of the deceased that the accused herein was the deceased’s teacher and who was later implicated for defiling her and a charge filed at Bondo law courts. It was also the evidence of Mary Adhiambo Odhiambo (PW7) that the deceased who the accused’s pupil at Milenga primary school ahd earlier disappeared in November 2023 and upon her resurfacing, she lodged a report at Maranda police station and which led to the accused being charged with defiling the minor. That upon release of the accused on bond, the minor disappeared only to be found having been killed within accused’s compound. The Bondo OCS Chief inspector Kahindi Charo (PW8) stated that he investigated a case of defilement of the minor and that the accused was charged over the same and that upon release of the accused on bond, the girl disappeared only for her body to be found having been buried in a shallow grave within the accused’s compound. It was further his evidence that the accused led him to his compound where the remains of the deceased were recovered as well as the assault weapon (jembe). It was the evidence of No. 246526 Pc Sheldon Ngala (PW9) that he investigated the matter and that he arranged for scenes of crime officers to visit thye scene and that he later organized for an autopsy on the body of the deceased. He also confirmed that the accused had been charged over a case of defilement at Bondo court vide S.O E006 of 2024. That he forwarded a sample of blood plus the recovered weapon to the Government chemist for analysis. He also stated that the accused made a confession over the murder of the deceased. Also it was the evidence of Dr Daniel Wanjofu (PW10) who testified on behalf of Dr Otieno who conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased on 14/5/2024 and that the cause of death was found to be severe head injury secondary to acute subdural hematoma following assault. The Government analyst Sarafine Ceruto Katukoi (PW110 testified that she analysed the exhibits presented to the department which comprised of a blood sample of the deceased and a jembe and established that the DNA profile generated from the jembe matched with the DNA profile of the sample of blood obtained from the deceased. 4.At the close of the prosecution’s case, learned counsels for the parties herein opted to rely on the record on the issue of whether a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution so as to warrant the accused to be called upon to make a defence. 5.I have considered the evidence of the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings. I find the issue for determination is whether a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution so as to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence. A prima facie case is one where a reasonable tribunal, directing its mind to the law and evidence placed before it, can convict an accused person if no evidence is tendered by the defence to the contrary. What this means is that the evidence so far tendered must be sufficient to sustain a conviction against the accused were he to elect to remain silent in defence. See Bhat Vs R [1957] EA 332. 6.After analyzing the evidence and without delving deeper into a thorough examination of the evidence so as not to prejudice the defence case, it transpired that the accused had been the deceased’s teacher at her school prior to her disappearance and that the accused had been charged before Bondo Law Courts with an offence of defilement vide S.O No. E006 of 2024. It is also not in dispute that the accused later took the deceased to PW1 and requested him to allow her stay with him for some time before he went and picked her. It is also not in dispute that the accused led police officers to his compound where the remains of the deceased were recovered. It is also not in dispute that the accused was the last person to be with the deceased after he took her from the home of his friend (PW1). I find that the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 placed the accused at the scene of the crime. That being the position, i find that the accused must now offer an explanation as to how the deceased met her death. 7.In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused herein to warrant him to be placed on his defence. Consequently, I find that the accused herein George Ochieng Adede, has a case to answer and is now called upon to elect to make his defence in accordance with the provisions of section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA, THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026.D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of:GEORGE OCHIENG ADEDE........................... Accused.OCHANYO...................................................for AccusedSOITA.....................................................for ProsecutionMAUREENE ..............................................Court Assistant.