[2008] KEHC 1860 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons after considering the evidence of 10 witnesses. The evidence was sufficient to require the accused to be put on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1860 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: James Mobali Ayaga; Defendant: Christine Kalemi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 99 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure, Rights of Accused
- 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
James Mobali Ayaga
Defendant
Christine Kalemi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to require them to be put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the constitutional rights of the accused have been violated as argued by the defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons after considering the evidence of 10 witnesses. The evidence was sufficient to require the accused to be put on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also considered and rejected the defence's submissions regarding alleged violations of the accused's constitutional rights, reserving full reasons for the final judgment. The accused were informed of their rights regarding the manner of their defence, including the options to give sworn or unsworn statements, call witnesses, or remain silent.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
Orders
- The accused persons are put on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused are informed of their rights to give sworn or unsworn statements and to call witnesses in their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Criminal Case 99 of 2006
REPUBLIC
-VS-
1. JAMES MOBALI AYAGA
2. CHRISTINE KALEMI
RULING
Both the accused have been charged for the offence of murder, contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence as stated on the information are as follows:
“On diverse dates between 25th September, 2004 and 30th September, 2004 at Mukuru kwa Njenga Embakasi within Nairobi Area jointly murdered ELIMA JAMES.
After carefully perusing the evidence of the 10 witnesses, I hereby find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to require them to be put on their defence in accordance to Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75, Laws of Kenya. The accused persons have the option to address the court either personally or by their advocate. In the event that the accused opt to give a sworn statement, then they will be subjected to cross-examination. They also have a right to call any number of witnesses in their defence.
Secondly, the accused persons have a right to make an unsworn statement and call witnesses to their defence. In the event that the accused persons exercise the second option, then they will not be subjected to any cross-examination.
Thirdly, the accused persons are at liberty not to offer any evidence. In that event, the Court will call upon the State Counsel to sum up the case against the accused persons. Consequently, the court shall then call on the accused persons personally or by their advocate to address the court on their own behalf.
Apart from the above, this Court has carefully considered the submissions that were made by both counsels in relation to the constitutional rights of the accused. However, the court hereby rejects the arguments by the defence counsel and wishes to reserve the full reasons to the above in the final judgment.
MUGA APONDI,
JUDGE.
4TH JUNE, 2008
Ruling read signed and delivered in open Court in the presence of the accused; Ms Wafula for Ong’ondo for Republic and Kanyangi for Accused.
MUGA APONDI,
JUDGE.
4TH JUNE, 2008.