https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/205

Republic v Gichohi (Criminal Case 1396 of 2016) [2026] KEMC 205 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 205 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Nanyuki Law Courts Criminal Case 1396 of 2016 D Ngayo, SRM June 30, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Purity Nyambura Gichohi Accused Ruling 1.The power of the court to determine existence of a prima facie case is provided for under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya. The essence of the provision is that if, at the close of the prosecution case and in assessing the evidence in light of the elements of the offence, the court is of the view that the prosecution has not proved any of the elements against the Accused sufficiently to require him or her to state or answer the charge, the court shall dismiss the case and forthwith acquit the Accused. However, if the court finds that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the Accused, section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya provides that the court must, of necessity, call upon the accused to proceed and offer his or her defence to the offence. 2.In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R1 what constitutes a prima facie case in a criminal trial was defined as follows:1[1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335,“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one “which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence…It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.” 3.It is trite law that on this issue, the test of a prima facie case is stated to exist where evidence can prove essential elements of the offence and a reasonable tribunal properly constituted addressing its mind to the facts and the law may convict if no evidence is offered in rebuttal. I have read and duly considered the submissions filed on behalf of the Accused and the Complainant, as I have had the opportunity to also consider the evidence on record by the Prosecution. 4.I will refrain from delving into the evidence adduced in this matter. Having carefully considered the material placed before me, I am unable to find, at this stage, that the Accused has no case to answer. Based on the evidence tendered by the Prosecution’s witnesses, I am satisfied that the prosecution has established a prima facie case for the purposes of a finding that the accused has a case to answer. At this stage, the court is not required to decide finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit or whether, if believed, it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively. That final determination can only properly be made when the case for the defence has been heard. 5.Accordingly, I place the Accused on her defence. RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NANYUKI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. DANIEL NGAYO,SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.In the presence of:The Accused present in person;Mr. Abubakar for the Accused;Mr. Thuku Mbaaro w/b for the Complainant;Ms. Akinyi for the ODPP; andMr. Dedan – C/A.