[2015] KEHC 6084 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused persons. The evidence showed that the accused were last seen with the deceased, were heard shouting by a witness, and were arrested with the help of that witness. Although the defence argued that the evidence was based on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6084 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: James Ndenda Mayiya; Defendant: Benard Atiya Natse
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 13 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to make their election on defence.
- 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
James Ndenda Mayiya
Defendant
Benard Atiya Natse
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant putting them on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced links the accused persons to the murder of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused persons. The evidence showed that the accused were last seen with the deceased, were heard shouting by a witness, and were arrested with the help of that witness. Although the defence argued that the evidence was based on suspicion, the court held that the circumstances were sufficient to require the accused to be put on their defence. The court emphasized that at this stage, the prosecution need only establish a case that would justify a conviction if the accused offered no explanation. Accordingly, the accused were found to have a case to answer and were called upon to elect how to proceed with...
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to make their election on defence.
Orders
- The accused persons are found to have a case to answer under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused are called upon to elect how they wish to proceed with their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO.13 OF 2010
REPUBLIC.........................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JAMES NDENDA MAYIYA...............................................................................1ST ACCUSED
BENARD ATIYA NATSE..................................................................................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused persons herein are charged with the offence of murder contrary to Sections 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on 08-12-2008 at Kitambazi Village within Tambua location, in Vihiga District within Western Province jointly with others not before court murdered ALEX VUSERA.They both denied the charges and were represented by Mr. Fwaya Advocate.
2. The trial in this case commenced de novo on the 19/07/2011 and was heard by two (2) judges before this court took over on 3rd February 2015. In the course of the trial, the prosecution called six (6) witnesses, at the end of which, the Defence counsel, Mr. Fwaya orally submitted that the prosecution evidence was based on suspicion and was not sufficient to warrant putting the accused persons on their defence. Mr. Ngetich for the Prosecution relied on the evidence on record and maintained that a prima facie case has been established to warrant putting the accused persons on their defence.
3. This Court has carefully gone through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, and considered the submissions by learned counsel. The prosecution by close of its case was required to establish such a case where, if the accused persons do not offer any defence then the court could convict on the evidence on record.
4. In my view the prosecution evidence on record establishes a prima facie case against the accused persons. As submitted by Counsel for the accused Mr. Fwaya the connection between the accused persons herein and the deceased is that they were all together in the evening coming from a drinking spree and the accused and others escorted the deceased home. I find that the fact that the accused persons were with the deceased before he met his death may imply that they knew or may have known what led to his death. They were heard shouting by PW3 which confirms that they were all together with the accused. PW3 helped in the arrest of the two accused persons. Taking all that evidence into account, I have reached the conclusion that the prosecution has made a prima facie case to warrant putting the accused persons on their defence on the murder charge preferred against them.
5. Accordingly, I rule that the accused persons have a case to answer in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. They may give sworn or unsworn evidence or even choose to remain silent and let court decide the case on the evidence before it. If any of them chooses to give sworn evidence, they will be subjected to cross-examination. Whichever option they choose, they have a right to call witnesses. I now call upon the accused persons to make their election on how they intend to proceed with their defence. It is so ordered.
Delivered, dated and signed in open court at Kakamega this 11th day of March 2015
RUTH N. SITATI
J U D G E
In the presence of
Mr. Ngetich for State
Mr. Fwaya (present) for Accused
Mr. F. Juma Court Assistant