Republic v Dionisia Gitonga Runji & 14 others [2017] KEHC 6600 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6600 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- FN Muchemi
- Case number
- Criminal Case 24 of 2012
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- FN Muchemi
- Case number
- Criminal Case 24 of 2012
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, at the close of the prosecution's case, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the charge of murder against the 1st to 14th accused persons. The only evidence implicating any accused was the testimony of PW7 and PW8, who identified the 15th accused as being present and participating in the attack on the deceased. The rest of the accused were only mentioned at a chief's baraza and there was no evidence placing them at the scene or linking them to the offence. Accordingly, the court acquitted the 1st to 14th accused persons under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code and found that only the 15th accused had a case to answer, requiring him to be put on his defence.
Court disposition
Partial acquittal; 1st to 14th accused acquitted, 15th accused to be put on defence.
Orders
- The 1st to 14th accused persons are acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The 15th accused is found to have a case to answer and is called upon to give his defence.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Applicant Counsel: Ms. NandwaDionisia Gitonga Runji
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Okwaro2nd Accused
Defendant Counsel: Ms. Njeru3rd Accused
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Mugambi4th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Ithiga5th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Momanyi6th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Nduku7th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Ms. Ndorongo8th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Ms. Njiru9th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Eddie Njiru10th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Ken Githinji11th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Nduku12th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Kathungu13th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Gacuba14th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Kariithi15th Accused
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Njoroge03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against each accused person to require them to be put on their defence.
- 02
Whether there was sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence linking each accused to the murder of the deceased.
- 03
Whether the evidence adduced supports the charge of murder against all or some of the accused persons.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution presented evidence from fourteen witnesses, including testimony that two witnesses (PW7 and PW8) saw the deceased being attacked by a group including the 15th accused. The prosecution argued that the evidence established a prima facie case against all accused persons, warranting their being put on their defence for the charge of murder.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against the accused, as there was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking most of them to the murder. They argued that only the 15th accused was specifically mentioned by eyewitnesses, and that the rest should be acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code; Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
A prima facie case is established when the evidence on record is sufficient to require an accused to be put on their defence.
- 02
Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code
An accused person should only be called to enter a defence if there is direct or circumstantial evidence linking them to the offence charged.
- 03
Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code
Acquittal is warranted where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case against an accused person at the close of its case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, at the close of the prosecution's case, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the charge of murder against the 1st to 14th accused persons. The only evidence implicating any accused was the testimony of PW7 and PW8, who identified the 15th accused as being present and participating in the attack on the deceased. The rest of the accused were only mentioned at a chief's baraza and there was no evidence placing them at the scene or linking them to the offence. Accordingly, the court acquitted the 1st to 14th accused persons under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code and found that only the 15th accused had a case to answer, requiring him to be put on his defence.
Obiter and limits
- The existence of a long-standing dispute between the deceased and the group known as 'Muturi' was not sufficient to establish criminal liability without direct or circumstantial evidence.
- Mere mention of accused persons at a chief's baraza does not amount to evidence linking them to the commission of the offence.
Court disposition
Partial acquittal; 1st to 14th accused acquitted, 15th accused to be put on defence.
- The 1st to 14th accused persons are acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The 15th accused is found to have a case to answer and is called upon to give his defence.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 OF 2012
REPUBLIC ………......................………....…………….................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
DIONISIA GITONGA RUNJI & 14 OTHERS.....................ACCUSED PERSONS
R U L I N G
The accused persons jointly face the charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. A plea of not guilty was entered for each of the accused persons.
The prosecution called fourteen (14) witnesses in this case. The evidence may be briefly stated. On the 19/06/2012 the deceased who was the Assistant Chief of Machanga sub-location in Mbeere South District of Embu County left his home at around 10. 00 am. to attend a meeting at Kamutuanjiru Primary School. The meeting ended at around 2. 00 pm. and the people dispersed.
The deceased did not return home on the material day. The following day personal articles including a biro pen, spectacles in a yellow case, one shoe, torch, and some maize combs were found on the road near one Murage's home. A trail of blood led the area residents to the river where several body parts identified to be those of the deceased were recovered. The accused persons were subsequently arrested and charged with the offence.
There was evidence that most of the accused persons were mentioned at a chief's baraza and arrested. There was also evidence that there was a long standing dispute between the local administration and a group of people known as “Muturi” who included some of the accused persons and that they had invaded government land and settled on it. This was said to have triggered bad blood between the group and the deceased who was opposed to the group's agenda.
Evidence was also given to the effect that some of the accused persons constantly differed with the deceased who was said to be a law-abiding citizen.
From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that none of the witnesses except PW7 (D15) and PW8(D16) saw the accused persons inflict the injuries that caused the death on the deceased. The deceased died of several cuts which resulted into a dismembered body.
The evidence of PW7 and PW8 was that on their way home from Machanga market at around 7. 00 p.m., they found the deceased on the road near one Murage's home surrounded by about 5 men whom they identified by their voices. The men who included 15th accused were armed with pangas and were accusing the deceased of denying them “permits” and constantly calling the police to harass them. The deceased pleaded with them to forgive him and spare his life. The attackers could not heed to the plea and proceeded to slash the deceased with pangas. Some of the men were to later go to the home of PW7 and PW8 where they threatened them with death in the event that they disclosed what they had seen.
The fifteen accused persons were each represented by a counsel. At the close of the prosecution's case the counsels made oral submissions to the effect that a prima facie case to justify calling the accused persons to give their defences had not been established.
I have perused and considered the evidence on record which has been summarised herein. I am of the considered opinion that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the charge against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th accused persons.
As for the 15th accused person, I am satisfied that the evidence on record sufficiently supports the charge against him. I find that he has a case to answer and is hereby called upon to give his defence.
Consequently the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th accused persons are hereby acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is hereby so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
1. Ms. Nandwa for State 2. All accused persons present 3. Mr. Momanyi for 5th Accused 4. Mr. Okwaro for 1st Accused and holding brief for Ms. Njeru for 2nd accused 5. Mr. Gacuba for 13th accused and holding brief for Mr. Mugambi for 3rd Accused 6. Mr. Ithiga for 4th accused and holding brief for Ms. Ndorongo for 7th accused.
7. Mr. Momanyi holding brief for Mr. Nduku for 6th & 11th Accused 8. Ms. Njiru for Fatuma for 8th Accused 9. Mr. Momanyi for Eddie Njiru for 9th Accused 10. Mr. Njoroge for 15th Accused 11. Mr. Njoroge for Ken Githinji for 10th Accused 12. Mr. Ithiga for Kathungu for 12th Accused 13. Ms. Njiru for Kariithi for 14th Accused
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.