https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/138
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the complainant because the medical evidence was inconsistent on the exact location of the injury, and the clinical officer who first treated the complainant was not called to clarify the discrepancy; accordingly, it was unsafe to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEMC 138 (KLR)
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Republic; Accused: John Mugenyu Githua
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E949 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Judgment After Full Trial
- Outcome
- Accused acquitted
- Judges
- ["CK Obara"]
- Legal Topics
- Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Inconsistency in Medical Evidence, Burden of Proof, Acquittal
- 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
Prosecutor
John Mugenyu Githua
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Judgment After Full Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the complainant.
- 2 Whether the inconsistency on the exact location of the injury made the medical evidence unsafe to rely on.
- 3 Whether the absence of testimony from the initial clinical officer was fatal to the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the complainant because the medical evidence was inconsistent on the exact location of the injury, and the clinical officer who first treated the complainant was not called to clarify the discrepancy; accordingly, it was unsafe to convict.
Court Disposition
Accused acquitted
Orders
- Accused acquitted under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Republic v Githua (Criminal Case E949 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 138 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 138 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Nyeri Law Courts Criminal Case E949 of 2024 CK Obara, CM June 24, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and John Mugenyu Githua Accused Judgment 1.The accused person John Mugenyu Githua is charged with the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code. Particulars are that on the 11th day of August, 2024 at about 08:30 hours in Nyeri Township in Nyeri Central Sub Counties within Nyeri County you intentionally and unlawfully assaulted Samuel Ngunju Muthami thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm. 2.The prosecution called three witnesses. PW1 Samuel Ngunju Mathanmi gave evidence that on 11th August, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. he took his vehicle registration number KCM 798 D to the car wash within Nyeri Town. He found one unknown male attendant cleaning another vehicle and requested to be given priority since he was in a hurry. He was asked to park his car next to the car wash and he did so. He stopped cleaning and came to wash his vehicle’s tyres. When he wanted to pay him cash Kshs. 200, another man came from the car wash as they negotiated. He was very harsh and rude. 3.He quarreled and asked why he had packed the vehicle outside. He told him that he was a customer. He became harsher and said he should not ask him questions and hit him on the left side of his forehead with something that he was holding in his hand. He prevented him from boarding his vehicle but he managed to enter his vehicle and drove to Nyeri Police Station where he was advised to go to hospital. He went to general hospital and he was treated. 4.The second witness, No. 69573 Corporal Chaka Mwadingo attached to Nyeri Police Station stated that on 11th August, 2024 he was at the report office when a reportee came bleeding from the left eye. His shirt was soaked in blood. They took his report and he was minuted to investigate. 5.The reportee informed PW2 that he was taking his vehicle to the car wash when he met a certain boy who was working at the carwash and directed him where to take his vehicle to be cleaned. After it was cleaned the accused came and asked him angrily why he had parked the vehicle where he had parked. He took a metal rod and hit him on the left eye. He gave the complainant a P3 Form and advised him to go to hospital. He later arrested the accused. 6.PW3 Doctor Nderitu Marvin Gathigo a Senior Medical Officer at Nyeri County Referral Hospital gave evidence that he filled the P3 Form for Samuel Ngunju who reported to have been assaulted at a car was in Nyeri Town. He had a bleeding cut wound on the face above the left eye and the probable weapon was a blunt object. The degree of injury was ascertained as harm. 7.The accused person gave sworn testimony and called no witness. He stated that he is a supervisor but at times, he also cleans vehicles. On 11th August, 2024 while at his place of work where they are usually 5 workers though on the material day they were only 3. He stated that it was his first time to see the complainant. He saw him park outside the car wash and the car was cleaned by one of the workers. 8.He was not charged and when he saw him trying to leave he went and asked him to pay but he said, he will not pay because only the tyres had been washed. He said the vehicle was washed while outside the garage. The accused person took the keys and hanged them somewhere within the carwash and there was no commotion. The complainant left and later came back after sometime and told him that he will pay for the loss he had suffered. 9.Shortly he saw 2 people and a police officer and approached them and he was handcuffed and taken to the police station. He stayed in the cells for an hour and then the OCS called him and asked him why he had assaulted someone. He said the complainant needed compensation of either 3,000 or 11,500. He said could not remember the amount demanded. 10.I have considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence by the accused person. I have also considered the submissions filed by defence counsel. The issue for determination is whether the prosecution has proved that the accused assaulted the complainant? 11.The complainant gave evidence that the complainant assaulted him whereas the accused denied and said he only snatched him the ignition keys when he noticed that he wanted to drive away without paying for the cleaning services. In my view whether the issue was non-payment of the cleaning services, parking the vehicle outside the car wash, or the complainant abusing the accused, the accused had no right to snatch the ignition keys from the complainant. 12.The complainant produced a patient file which had only one page. It indicates that he had a bleeding cut wound on the face above the left ear. The Doctor testified that he relied on the said treatment notes. He indicated in the P3 form that the complainant had a bleeding cut wound on the face above the left eye. He never indicated the size of the wound. In re examination he clarified that the eye is in close proximity to the ear. It is called the temporal region. It is an issue of what one sees and what the other one sees. 13.It is worth to note that the clinical officer who first treated the complainant was never called to clarify what he or she observed. In light of the inconsistency as to where exactly the complainant sustained the cut wound, I find it unsafe to convict the accused person. It was important that the clinical officer be called to point out exactly where he or she saw the injury so that the evidence is tested. 14.In conclusion, it is my finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused is hereby acquitted under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless otherwise lawfully held. JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NYERI THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.C. K. OBARACHIEF MAGISTRATEAccused: PresentCourt Prosecutor: Mr. MuriukiAdvocate for the accused: Ms. Ann ThiongoCourt Assistant: Mugambi