[2017] KEHC 4844 (KLR)
The court reaffirmed its earlier finding that the accused persons had a case to answer for the offence of murder, as previously ruled on 10th October 2016. The prosecution's request for more time to produce exhibits was noted, but as no appeal or challenge had been made to the ruling on case to answer, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4844 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Edward Okanga Malalu; Defendant: Michael Musango
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 22 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling After Prosecution Closed Case, Before Defence Hearing
- Outcome
- Defence hearing to proceed; previous ruling on case to answer stands.
- Judges
- AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Murder, 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
Edward Okanga Malalu
Defendant
Michael Musango
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling After Prosecution Closed Case, Before Defence Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons have a case to answer for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether the prosecution should be allowed additional time to produce exhibits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court reaffirmed its earlier finding that the accused persons had a case to answer for the offence of murder, as previously ruled on 10th October 2016. The prosecution's request for more time to produce exhibits was noted, but as no appeal or challenge had been made to the ruling on case to answer, the court directed that the matter proceed to defence hearing as a priority. The court balanced the need for the prosecution to present its case fully with the accused's right to a timely trial, but found no sufficient reason to delay the proceedings further.
Court Disposition
Defence hearing to proceed; previous ruling on case to answer stands.
Orders
- The ruling of 10th October 2016 remains in force.
- The matter will proceed for defence hearing on priority.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA ATKAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 OF 2013
REPUBLIC……………….………………………………….…..PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
EDWARD OKANGA MALALU………………………...……..…1ST ACCUSED
MICHAEL MUSANGO…………………………………..………2ND ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. Both accused persons have been charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on the 21st day of April, 2013 at Emurembe village within the County of Vihiga the two jointly with others not before court murdered Njomo Ombaka
2. They pleaded not guilty to the said charge and the case proceeded for hearing where the prosecution called six (6) witnesses and thereafter closed their case. I note from the record that the court found that the accused persons had a case to answer on the 10th of October, 2016. When the matter came up for the defence on the 24. 1.2017 learned state counsel sought for time to familiarize himself with the case herein and further to produce exhibits in support of the prosecution case.
3. A ruling was made and the prosecution allowed to peruse the file within the shortest time possible and produce exhibits.
4. On the 8. 5.2017 the prosecution had no police file nor had they received any exhibits and they sought to take directions before this court.
5. The direction this court gives is that he ruling of 10th of October, 2016 will remains in force since no one has appealed. This matter will proceed for the defence hearing on priority.
It is so ordered
Ruling delivered, dated and signed in open court at Kakamega this 27th day of June 2017
RUTH N. SITATI
JUDGE
In the presence of;-
…………Mr. Juma(present)……………………………….for Republic
……Miss Mahuni (present)…………….………………….for accused
………Polycap………………………………………….Court Assistant