https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8678

Republic v Chege (Criminal Case 11 of 2018) [2026] KEHC 8678 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8678 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Criminal Case 11 of 2018 A Mshila, J June 19, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and James Maina Chege Accused Ruling 1.The accused was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code; he was accused of having murdered David Waweru on the night of 21st day of January, 2018 at Kihunguro Area near Railway within Ruiru Sub-County within Kiambu County. 2.The accused entered a plea of Not Guilty and at the hearing he was represented by Learned Counsel Mr. Njehu whereas Mr. Gacharia was the Prosecuting Counsel for the State. 3.A total of Eight (8) prosecution witnesses were called in support of the prosecution’s case and at the close of its case both counsel were invited to make submissions on whether the prosecution had made out a case that would necessitate the accused to be called upon to defend himself. 4.Defence counsel filed short written submissions whereas the prosecuting counsel stated that it would be relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses; Prosecuting Counsel submitted that the evidence was sufficient to have the accused placed on his defence; Accused’s Case 5.Counsel submitted that the only issue to be determined is whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused; His contention was that there was no direct evidence adduced against the accused to link or connect her to the commission of the offence; none of the prosecution witnesses testified that they witnessed the incident; There were also no proper investigations carried out and the police merely rescued the accused from mob justice and relied on the reports that were made by the villagers. 6.It was counsels’ humble submission that there was no sufficient evidence adduced to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence and prayed that he be acquitted forthwith. Analysis 7.The question is whether the prosecution has made out a ‘prima facie case’ for the accused to answer; the definition of a ‘prima facie case’ is well captured in the renowned Court of Appeal case of Bhatt vs Republic (1957) EA 332 where the court held as follows;‘A prima facie case must mean one where a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.’ 8.At the close of the prosecution’s case, if this court is satisfied that there is ‘a prima facie case’ made out by the prosecution it is not required to give any reasons for reaching such a decision; these reasons would only be requisite if the court were to uphold the submissions on ‘no case to answer’. 9.This court has thus evaluated the evidence on record and has directed its mind to the applicable law on the offence; upon applying the same principles as set out in the cited authority Bhatt (supra) this court is satisfied that ‘the evidence could lead to a conviction if no explanation is offered by the defence.’ and for this reason finds that the prosecution has established a ‘prima facie’ case against the accused that warrants the accused being placed on his defence to answer to the charges. 10.For those reasons this court finds that the accused has a case to answer; his rights and options will be put to him for election before he presents his defence.Orders Accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT VOI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.A. MSHILAJUDGEIn the presence of;Sanja/Trizah – Court AssistantsGachaia - for the ProsecutionNo appearance by Njeru for the AccusedAccused – Absent