[2021] KEHC 3962 (KLR)
The court, applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if uncontroverted, could lead to a conviction. Therefore, a prima facie case had been established against all accused persons. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3962 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Benjamin Kithinji; Defendant: Benard Mutura; Defendant: Cosmas Kirimi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 63 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused persons put on their defence.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- 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
Benjamin Kithinji
Defendant
Benard Mutura
Defendant
Cosmas Kirimi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant their being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, could lead to a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if uncontroverted, could lead to a conviction. Therefore, a prima facie case had been established against all accused persons. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to provide elaborate reasons for its decision, as doing so could prejudice the defence or preempt the final determination of the case. The accused persons were accordingly put on their defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and their rights under that provision were to be explained to them.
Court Disposition
Accused persons put on their defence.
Orders
- The accused persons shall be put on their defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The rights of the accused persons under section 306(2) shall be explained to them.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 63 OF 2015
REPUBLIC.........................................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
BENJAMIN KITHINJI.......................1ST ACCUSED
BENARD MUTURA...........................2ND ACCUSED
COSMAS KIRIMI...............................3RD ACCUSED
RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER
1. Benjamin Kithinji, Bernard Mutura and Cosmas Kirimi are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The prosecution’s case is that on 21st August 2015, at Kiegoi Location in Igembe South Sub-County within Meru County, the accused persons jointly murdered Joses Kaiyongi Kachumbika.
2. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to trial, the prosecution calling a total of 8 witnesses to prove the charge.
3. The court has considered as required under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code whether there is the evidence that the accused persons or any of the accused persons committed the offence. At this stage, however, the court is required to be satisfied only that a prima facie case exists. As held in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R(1957) EA 332, 335 a prima facie case is “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.”
4. The Court has considered the evidence presented herein by the Prosecution, but notes that at this stage, it is not required to give elaborate reasons for its decision. The importance of a Court refraining from giving reasons for its decision at the stage of case to answer was discussed in the High Court case of Kibera Karimi v. R (1979) KLR 36 where Trevelyan & Todd JJ held as follows: -
“When the Prosecution case was closed, the defence submitted that there was no case for the appellant to answer, which submission was rejected in a detailed ruling, a practice which should not, at all events, generally, be followed as Roskill LJ pointed out in R Vs Falconer-Atlee (1974) 58 Cr App Rep 348, 356 in relation to a jury case:
If he was going to leave the case to the jury, he should have left it saying no more than that there was evidence to go to the jury…
Roskill L J thought that in the circumstances of the case the trial judge had been unwise, as he put it, because in giving his reasons, he expressed a view, albeit only a tentative view on the facts.”
5. Consequently, the accused shall be put on their defence in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and their rights thereunder shall be explained to them.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021.
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances
Ms B. Nandwa Prosecution Counsel for the State
Mr. E. Kimathi Advocate for the 1st and 2nd accused persons
Ms Ntarangwi for the 3rd accused person.