[2015] KEHC 3762 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through the testimony of eight witnesses to establish a prima facie case against both accused persons. The evidence on record, if left unchallenged, could potentially result in a conviction. Therefore, the court ruled that both Frederick George...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3762 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Frederick George Mukhana; Defendant: Benson Oduor Panya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 27 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Both accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, 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
Frederick George Mukhana
Defendant
Benson Oduor Panya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant them being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to require the accused to answer to the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through the testimony of eight witnesses to establish a prima facie case against both accused persons. The evidence on record, if left unchallenged, could potentially result in a conviction. Therefore, the court ruled that both Frederick George Mukhana and Benson Oduor Panya must be put on their defence to answer the charge of murder. The court also informed the accused of their rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the manner of giving evidence and calling witnesses in their defence.
Court Disposition
Both accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
Orders
- Each accused is put on his defence to answer the charge of murder.
- Each accused is informed of his right under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to choose how to give evidence and whether to call witnesses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 27 OF 2012
REPUBLIC………………………………………….....................…PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
FREDERICK GEORGE MUKHANA……….………….......................1ST ACCUSED
BENSON ODUOR PANYA………………….………........................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
Frederick George Mukhana, the 1st accused, and Benson Oduor Panya, the 2nd accused, are jointly charged with murder contrary to section 203 read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that they murdered Robert Ochieng Makokha on 7th April 2012 at Dadora Phase Four in Njiru District within Nairobi County.Both accused have each denied the charge necessitating this full trial. They are represented by Mr. Omollo, advocate.
At the close of the prosecution evidence following testimony of eight (8) witnesses the court has a duty to determine whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to necessitate the court to call upon both of the accused persons or any of them to call evidence in their/his defence.
I have read considered all the evidence on record. I am persuaded that there is sufficient evidence on record against each of the accused persons. My finding is that a prima facie case has been made out against each of the accused persons requiring each to defend himself. I will and do hereby put each on his defence. I also inform them of their right under section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to inform this court how they wish to give evidence in their respective defences, either by taking an oath or without oath. They are also informed of their right to inform this court if they wish to call any witnesses to testify in their defence and if so how many witnesses. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered this 8th day of June 2015.
S. N. Mutuku
Judge