[2016] KEHC 5436 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly from the three witnesses who were with the deceased and observed the altercation with the accused over payment for washing the deceased's vehicle, placed the accused at the scene and implicated them in the events leading to the deceased's death. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5436 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Antony Mbago Rumusu; Defendant: Harrison Maina Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 20 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Both accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on their defence.
- 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
Antony Mbago Rumusu
Defendant
Harrison Maina Kamau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to require them to be put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced implicates the accused persons in the murder of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly from the three witnesses who were with the deceased and observed the altercation with the accused over payment for washing the deceased's vehicle, placed the accused at the scene and implicated them in the events leading to the deceased's death. The evidence established that the accused followed the deceased after the altercation, and the deceased was subsequently found dead from severe head injuries. Applying the legal standard for a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. Republic and R. v. Jagjivan M. Patel & Others, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict if no explanation is offered by...
Court Disposition
Both accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on their defence.
Orders
- Each of the two accused persons has a case to answer and is put on their defence.
- The accused are informed of their rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to elect the manner of their defence and whether they will call witnesses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20 OF 2013
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………...PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
ANTONY MBAGO RUMUSU……………………….....................1ST ACCUSED
HARRISON MAINA KAMAU………………………....................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
Antony Mbago Rumusu, the 1st accused, and Harrison Maina Kamau, the 2nd accused, are charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence state that on the night of 11th and 12th of January 2013 at Umoja 1 Estate in Nairobi County, within Nairobi Province (sic) jointly with others not before the court murdered Nicholas Vaati Ndavi, the deceased.
The prosecution has called evidence from five witnesses to support its case. At the close of the prosecution case this court is under a duty at this stage of the trial to determine whether the evidence of the five witnesses establishes a prima facie case against the two accused persons or any of them to persuade this court to put them on their defence. This ruling is in respect to that determination.
The Court in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. Republic(1957) E.A. 332 has defined “prima facie” case to mean as follows:
“It is 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 tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
In R. v. Jagjivan M. Patel & Others 1, TLR, 85the learned Judge said;
"All the court has to decide at the close of evidence of the charge is whether a case is made out against the accused just sufficiently to require him to make a defence, it may be a strong case or it may be a weak case. The court is not required at this stage to apply its mind in deciding finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit or whether, if believed, it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt. A ruling that there is a case to answer would be justified, in my opinion, in a border line case where the court, though not satisfied as to conclusiveness of the prosecution evidence, is yet of opinion that the case made out is one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
With these authorities in mind I have examined the evidence of Paul Maingi Mutilu, PW1; Nicholas Wambua Kamba, PW2 and Nicholas Ndavi, PW3. The three witnesses were with the deceased on the night he met his death. They testified that they joined the deceased at Doc’s Pub Bururburu in Nairobi and took alcoholic drinks until past midnight. They testified that an altercation arose outside the Pub after the two accused persons, who used to wash cars at the parking of Doc’s Pub, demanded to be paid for washing Motor Vehicle No. KBN 610A belonging to the deceased. After the deceased refused to pay them evidence shows that the deceased decided to walk home shortly thereafter after a disagreement with PW1 his driver. The deceased lived at Umoja 1 Estate which is situated across Outer Ring Road. The two accused are said to have followed him while the three witnesses drove the same motor vehicle towards deceased’s home. The deceased did not arrive home. He was killed on the way. The cause of death has been established as severe head injury that caused a fracture of the skull.
I have considered that the two accused persons are implicated in evidence as having argued with the deceased over payment of money for allegedly washing his vehicle KBN 610A and having followed the deceased. The evidence places them at Doc’s Pub where they met the deceased and the three prosecution witnesses. I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established in line with the Patel case above and I do hereby find that each of the two accused persons has a case to answer. I do hereby inform them of their rights under section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that they are required to inform this court whether they will give a sworn or unsworn statement in their respective defences and whether they will be calling witnesses in their defence. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered this 21st day of April 2016.
S. N. MUTUKU
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms Macharia for the prosecution
Mr. Mochere for the accused persons
Mr. Antony Mbago Rumusu, 1st accused
Mr. Harrison Maina Kamau, 2nd accused
Mr. Daniel Ngumbi, Court Clerk