[2021] KEHC 1492 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, as presented by eight witnesses, established the essential ingredients of the offence of murder as charged. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a prima facie case had been made out against all accused persons. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 1492 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Agnes Kangaria Ntimuthinge; Defendant: Pricillah Kendi Mwanake; Defendant: Ben Ngugi Kanyaru; Defendant: Rosaline Kaithi Mutiiria; Defendant: Mbiti Mwarange Miriiga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 16 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / 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
- LW Gitari
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Agnes Kangaria Ntimuthinge
Defendant
Pricillah Kendi Mwanake
Defendant
Ben Ngugi Kanyaru
Defendant
Rosaline Kaithi Mutiiria
Defendant
Mbiti Mwarange Miriiga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / 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 their being placed on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced meets the threshold required under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, as presented by eight witnesses, established the essential ingredients of the offence of murder as charged. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a prima facie case had been made out against all accused persons. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to give elaborate reasons or evaluate the defence, as doing so would prejudice the accused before they have had an opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the accused persons were found to have a case to answer and were placed on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their defence.
Orders
- Each accused person is informed of their right to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, and call witnesses in their defence as provided under Section 306(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT CHUKA
HCCR CASE NO. 16 OF 2018
REPUBLIC........................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
AGNES KANGARIA NTIMUTHINGE...........................................................1ST ACCUSED
PRICILLAH KENDI MWANAKE....................................................................2ND ACCUSED
BEN NGUGI KANYARU....................................................................................3RD ACCUSED
ROSALINE KAITHI MUTIIRIA.....................................................................4TH ACCUSED
MBITI MWARANGE MIRIIGA.......................................................................5TH ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. The five (5) accused persons herein were charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code, Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya.
2. The particulars of the offence as per the information dated 17th September 2018 were that on 13th August 2018 at Mwanyani Location, Tharaka South Sub-County within Tharaka -Nithi County, the said accused persons jointly with others not before court murdered one Peter Nyaga Kireru.
3. The accused persons underwent mental assessment and were all found to be fit to stand trial. They all denied committing the offence and the matter proceeded to trial. The prosecution called a total of eight (8) witnesses before it closed its case on 19th October 2021.
4. This ruling thus seeks to determine whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls within the threshold of a prima facie case to warrant this court to place the accused persons to their defences. None of the parties opted to put in their submissions at this stage.
5. The question on what constitutes a prima facie case has been extensively considered in several authorities. The leading authority is the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt -v- Republic [1957] E.A. 332 where the court defined a prima facie case as one which a reasonable tribunal properly addressing its mind to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.
6. I have considered the evidence that has been tendered by the prosecution witnesses and it is my view that it has established the ingredients of the offence of murder, which charge the accused persons herein are facing. As such, I hold that the prosecution’s case meets the threshold of aprima faciecase as set out in in the case of Bhatt -v- R which I have cited above.
7. At this stage, this court need not give elaborate reasons for its finding as it is yet to hear the side of the story of the accused persons and giving reasons would amount to determining the case without giving them an opportunity to be heard (See: Republic -v- Samuel Karanja Kiria [2009] eKLR).
8. It is sufficient at this juncture to inform the accused persons that they have a case to answer and give them a chance to be heard. I therefore hold that the accused have a case to answer and will proceed as provided under Section 306 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya). It provides:-
“ (2) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is evidence that the accused person or any one or more of several accused persons committed the offence, shall inform each such accused person of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate (if any), to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence, and in all cases shall require him or his advocate (if any) to state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself; and upon being informed thereof, the judge shall record the fact. (3) If the accused person says that he does not intend to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, then the advocate for the prosecution may sum up the case against the accused person; but if the accused person says that he intends to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, the court shall call upon him to enter upon his defence.”
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT CHUKA THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.
L.W. GITARI
JUDGE