[2018] KEHC 3642 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the test from RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R and the provisions of Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court determined that a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3642 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Joseph Mwenda Kiungu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 59 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused placed on his defence
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- 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
Joseph Mwenda Kiungu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if unchallenged, would justify a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the test from RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R and the provisions of Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation was offered. Therefore, the accused was placed on his defence and informed of his rights under the law to address the court, give evidence, or call witnesses.
Court Disposition
accused placed on his defence
Orders
- The accused is placed on his defence.
- The accused is informed of his right to address the court, give evidence, or call witnesses in his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 59 OF 2013
REPUBLIC...............................................PROSECUTOR
Versus
JOSEPH MWENDA KIUNGU.......................ACCUSED
RULING
Case to answer
[1] The accused person was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code CAP 63 of the Laws of Kenya. The prosecution closed its case on 27th September 2018; after having called 5 witnesses. Counsel for the State intimated to court that he will not submit. Defence counsel, M/S Nelima intimated to court that she will file submissions in 7 days. The court directed her to file the submissions in 7 days. By the time of delivery of this ruling she had not filed the submissions. The case was scheduled for ruling on 9th October 2018 to determine whether or not the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused as to call upon him to enter his defence. This is the question that now falls for determination before this court. See Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that:-
306. (1)When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or any one of several accused committed the offence shall, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
(2) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is evidence that the accused person or any one or more of several accused persons committed the offence, shall inform each such accused person of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate (if any), to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence, and in all cases shall require him or his advocate (if any) to state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself; and upon being informed thereof, the judge shall record the fact.
(3) If the accused person says that he does not intend to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, then the advocate for the prosecution may sum up the case against the accused person; but if the accused person says that he intends to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, the court shall call upon him to enter upon his defence.
[2] A Prima facie case has been said to be;
‘’…one which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence would convict if no explanation is offered by the defence’’. See RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R (1957) EA 332(CA)
[3] The accused is facing a charge of murder. Four witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution. Upon perusal of the said evidence adduced, there is a prima facie case established against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is hereby placed on his defence. The accused person has been duly informed of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate, to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence. The accused or his advocate is required to state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Meru this 9th day of October 2018
------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Namiti for State
M/s. Nelima for accused – absent
Accused
-----------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE