[2005] KEHC 1713 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to present any direct evidence linking the accused to the offence. No eye-witnesses were called, and the key prosecution witness was not present at the scene. The police officers who testified were also not present during the incident and did not record any dying...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1713 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Daniel Timayo Mumeita; Defendant: David Wanjala Kibui; Defendant: Christopher Aswi Khalokhom; Defendant: Zakaria Kimani Ngugi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 58 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Acquittal
- 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
Daniel Timayo Mumeita
Defendant
David Wanjala Kibui
Defendant
Christopher Aswi Khalokhom
Defendant
Zakaria Kimani Ngugi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether the evidence on record proved the essential ingredients of murder under Section 203 of the Penal Code.
- 3 Whether the accused persons have a case to answer under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to present any direct evidence linking the accused to the offence. No eye-witnesses were called, and the key prosecution witness was not present at the scene. The police officers who testified were also not present during the incident and did not record any dying declaration from the deceased. The evidence on record did not establish the essential ingredients of murder, namely actus reus and mens rea, as required by Section 203 of the Penal Code. The court held that the prosecution's case was based on suspicion and speculation, and that the defence was not obliged to fill the gaps in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court ruled that no...
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- All accused persons are acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Accused should be released forthwith unless held lawfully.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Criminal Case 58 of 2003
REPUBLIC…………………………………..…………...PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DANIEL TIMAYO MUMEITA………………………...1ST ACCUSED
DAVID WANJALA KIBUI……………...……….……..2ND ACCUSED
CHRISTOPHER ASWI KHALOKHOM…….……….3RD ACCUSED
ZAKARIA KIMANI NGUGI……………….….……...4TH ACCUSED
RULING
From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the police never availed any eye-witness to confirm the people who had attacked the deceased. The key witness of the prosecution was the PW1 Thomas Baraza who was also not present at the scene. On going to the scene, he took the Accused 3 to the hospital and also the deceased.
Both the PW3andPW4 were police officers who also admitted that they were not present at the scene. Unfortunately, both of them never recorded any dying declaration from the deceased implicating the Accused. The Court hasnot been told whether that
was because the deceased could not talk or whether it was because the police officers never addressed their minds to that particular aspect.
Besides the above, Section 203 of the Penal Code states as follows:
“Any person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.”
From the above, it is clear that there are two ingredients that have to be proved. These are the:
-Acteus Rea
-Mens Rea
Unfortunately, the evidence on record does not prove the required ingredients at all. Admittedly, the prosecution has been hoping that the defence will fill in the gaps in their case. Obviously, the defence is not obliged to do so. Having stated the above, in the event that the Accused opt to keep quiet, then no properly constituted tribunal directing its mind judiciously can convict any of the Accused for the offence of murder. It is apparent that the investigations were inadequate and shallow. The same raise suspicions on the Accused – but cannot provide any basis for any conviction.
In view of the above, I hereby find that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against all the Accused persons. All the Accused have no case to answer and are hereby “acquitted” under Section 210 of the C.P.C.
Accused should be released forthwith unless held lawfully.
Those are the Orders of the Court.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
29TH JULY, 2005
Ruling read in the presence of the Accused and Mr. Koech, Senior State Counsel and Ms Shilaho.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
28TH JULY, 2005