[2022] KEHC 2328 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimonies of eight witnesses, presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict if no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2328 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Jackson Musyoka Mwarire
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 4 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on his defence.
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- Legal Topics
- Murder, 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
Jackson Musyoka Mwarire
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 putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented meets the threshold for a case to answer in a murder charge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimonies of eight witnesses, presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence as charged. The court refrained from giving detailed reasons at this stage to avoid prejudicing the accused's right to be heard, in line with established legal principles and statutory procedure.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence as charged.
- The accused to proceed as provided under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and inform the court whether he wishes to give sworn or unsworn evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT CHUKA
CRIMINAL CAE NO. 4 OF 2019
REPUBLIC.........................................................................................PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS-
JACKSON MUSYOKA MWARIRE.....................................................ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. The accused person herein is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya).
2. The particulars of the offence are that on 13th June 2019 at Kisasi area in Ueuweni Market, Twantanju Sub-location, Kathangachini Location, Tharaka-North Sub-County within Tharaka-Nithi County, murdered one Mark Mucunku Nkanga. The accused pleaded not guilty
3. The prosecution called a total of eight (8) witnesses in support of its case against the accused before closing its case on 29th November 2021.
4. This ruling thus seeks to determine whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused person that would warrant this court to call upon the said accused persons to give their defence. In other words, does the accused persons have a case to answer?
5. The law is well settled by several authorities as to what constitutes a prima facie case. The leading authority is the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt -v- Republic [1957] E.A. 332 where the court defined a prima facie case as one which a reasonable tribunal properly addressing its mind to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.
6. This court has the duty to evaluate the testimonies of each of the eight (8) prosecution witnesses against the charge of murder that the accused person is facing. In the instant, it is my view that the evidence presented by the prosecution before this court meets the threshold in the case of Bhatt -v- R (supra).
7. At this stage, no reasons need to be given for this finding as this court is yet to hear the side of the story of the accused person and giving reasons would amount to determining the case without giving them an opportunity to be heard (See: Republic -v- Samuel Karanja Kiria [2009] eKLR).
8. It is sufficient at this juncture to inform the accused person whether he has a case to answer and give him a chance to be heard. Based on the evidence tendered by the prosecution up to the close of their case, I find that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the accused persons to be put on his defence as charged.
The accused will proceed as provided under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Codeand inform the court whether he wishes to address the court on oath or unsworn. If he opts to address the court on Oath, he will be sworn and after giving evidence he will be cross-examined by the prosecution. If he opts to give unsworn statement, he will not be cross-examined.
Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 27th day of January, 2022.
L.W. GITARI
JUDGE