[2017] KEHC 8536 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the evidence of eight witnesses including Dr. Patrick Mutuku, had established a prima facie case against the accused, Cornelius Mutemi alias David Mutiemi, for the murder of Newton Kimeu Nguthu. Applying the standard set out in REPUBLIC v JAGJIVAN M. PATEL & Others, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8536 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Cornelius Mutemi alias David Mutiemi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 63 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence.
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, 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
Cornelius Mutemi alias David Mutiemi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to require the accused to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if believed, could sustain a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, through the evidence of eight witnesses including Dr. Patrick Mutuku, had established a prima facie case against the accused, Cornelius Mutemi alias David Mutiemi, for the murder of Newton Kimeu Nguthu. Applying the standard set out in REPUBLIC v JAGJIVAN M. PATEL & Others, the court held that it is not required at this stage to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence to require the accused to make a defence. The court was satisfied that such a case had been made out and accordingly put the accused on his defence, informing him of his rights under the law.
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused is informed of his rights under the law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 63 OF 2015
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………..…PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
CORNELIUS MUTEMI alias DAVID MUTIEMI…..……………...….………..ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused CORNELIUS MUTEMI alias DAVID MUTIEMI was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code the particulars of which were that on 7th day of June, 2015 at Mathare area in Starehe Sub County within Nairobi County murdered NEWTON KIMEU NGUTHU.
2. He pleaded not guilty and to prove its case against the same, the prosecution called eight witnesses who testified on oath against the accused and at the close of the prosecution case when called upon to make submissions on whether the prosecution had made up a case against the same to enable the court put him on his defence the same opted not to make any submissions.
3. At this stage, the issue is not whether or not the prosecution has established a case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt but whether a case has been made to justify calling upon the accused person to offer an explanation as was stated in the case of REPUBLIC v JAGJIVAN M. PATEL & Others (1) TLR as follows:-
“All the court has to decide at the close of the evidence in support 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 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 the conclusiveness of the prosecution evidence, is yet of the opinion that the case made out is one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
4. From the evidence tendered before me and in particular the evidence of PW2 and PW4 Dr. Patrick Mutuku and being alive to the accused persons constitutional right under Article 50 (2) (i) I am satisfied and find that the prosecution has made up a prima facie case against the accused to enable me which I hereby do, put the same on his defence. The accused is therefore informed of his rights under Section 306(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at Nairobi this 28th day of February, 2017
………………………………….
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mrs. Kinoti for the State
Mr. Oloo for Mr. Ogada for the accused
Accused present
Tabitha court clerk