[2019] KEHC 761 (KLR)
The court found that, upon careful evaluation of the evidence from ten prosecution witnesses, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. Although the evidence was circumstantial, the court held that circumstantial evidence is admissible and can be sufficient to require an accused to be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 761 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Esther Nduku Mutua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 166 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused put on her defence
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Case to Answer, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Esther Nduku Mutua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant her being put on her defence.
- 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced is sufficient to link the accused to the offence of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, upon careful evaluation of the evidence from ten prosecution witnesses, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. Although the evidence was circumstantial, the court held that circumstantial evidence is admissible and can be sufficient to require an accused to be put on their defence if it is cogent and points to the accused. The defence's argument that there was no direct evidence linking the accused was not sufficient to discharge the prosecution's burden at this stage. Consequently, the accused was called upon to make her defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
accused put on her defence
Orders
- The accused is called upon to make her defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MAKUENI
HCCR NO. 166 OF 2017
FORMERLY MACHAKOS HCCRC 8 OF 2015
REPUBLIC..........................PROSECUTION
-VERSUS-
ESTHER NDUKU MUTUA.......ACCUSED
RULING
1. Esther Nduku Mutua the accused herein stands charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The deceased Francis Kioko Mutungiwho was a brother in-law of the accused is said to have been killed on the night of 14th and 15th January, 2015 at Kiteini village.
2. The prosecution called a total of ten (10) witnesses whose evidence I have carefully considered. Each of them has stated what they saw, heard and did. The prosecution entirely relied on this evidence.
3. M/s Mbuvi for the accused filed written submissions which I have carefully considered. The prosecution relied on the evidence on record.
4. I agree with the defence that the evidence is circumstantial. That does not however mean it is not worth considering. She also submitted that there was no evidence linking the accused to the offence.
5. Upon thorough evaluation of the evidence, I find that the prosecution has established a case against the accused who is hereby called upon to make her defence under section 306(2) Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered, signed & dated this 18th day of December 2019, in open court at Makueni.
……………………………….
H. I. Ong’udi
Judge