[2018] KEHC 9066 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused based on the cumulative evidence of eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene, recovery of items in his presence, his interrogation and confession, and the post mortem findings establishing the cause of death. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9066 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Joseph Thomas Olang
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 67 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether to Put Accused on Defence After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence; prosecution established a prima facie case.
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Malice Aforethought, 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 Thomas Olang
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether to Put Accused on Defence After Close of Prosecution Case
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 adduced establishes malice aforethought as required for the offence of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused based on the cumulative evidence of eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene, recovery of items in his presence, his interrogation and confession, and the post mortem findings establishing the cause of death. The court held that, at this stage, it is not required to make definitive findings on the credibility of the evidence or the guilt of the accused, but only to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the accused to make a defence. The court concluded that the threshold for a prima facie case had been met and accordingly put the accused on his defence, advising him...
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence; prosecution established a prima facie case.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence under Section 306(2) and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused is advised of his rights under the law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 67 OF 2013
REPUBLIC....................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JOSEPH THOMAS OLANG................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused JOSEPH THOMAS OLANG was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code the particulars of which were that on 14/6/2013 at about 7. 00 p.m. at Kidfarmaco Estate in Kikuyu Town within Kiambu County murdered JOYCE NJERI KAGI.
2. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and to prove its case against him, the prosecution called a total of nine (9) witnesses and at the close of the prosecution case it was submitted by the prosecution that the evidence tendered on its behalf was enough to enable the court place the accused on his defence.
3. On behalf of the accused, written submissions were filed on 22/1/2018 which were highlighted by Miss Wandugi advocate to wit:- there was no malice aforethought established through the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that the deceased called the accused to go repair for her a television which he did and that there is no evidence that he was armed at the time and that if there was any weapon at the scene, then it was brought there by the deceased. It was submitted further that as per the government analyst the blood stains on the trouser belonging to the accused were of unknown male while the sperms on the underwear of the deceased were equally of unknown male person thereby placing more than one person at the scene.
4. It was therefore submitted that the prosecution case raised a lot of doubts and as such could not establish a prima facie case against the accused. It was submitted that the conduct of PW1 the accused girlfriend in whose house he was at the time of the commission of the offence was unnatural by switching off her mobile phone when the accused called her regarding the incident.
5. At this stage all that the court has to decide is whether a case is made out against the accused just sufficiently to require him to make a defence as was stated in the case of REPUBLIC v JAGJIVAN M. PATEL & Others (1) TLR.
6. I have looked at the evidence tendered before the court and without saying much thereon in particular the evidence of PW1 EUNICE WANJIRU NJOROGE the girlfriend of the accused who placed him at the scene, PW5 CORP. JOHNA SAWA who recovered items at the scene in the presence of the accused, PW6 CHIEF INSPECTIOR CHRISTOPHER KIMUTIwho interrogated the accused at the scene and PW7 SP. JEREMIA MUSYOKA who recorded a confessing statement from the accused and PW9 DR. ODUOR who conducted post mortem examined on the body of the deceased and established the cause of death.
7. I am of the considered opinion and find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused person to enable me put him on his defence which I hereby do. The accused is therefore advised of his rights under Section 306 (2)and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at Nairobi this 4th day of April 2018.
………………….
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Meroka for the State
Ms Wandegu for Muoki for the accused
Accused present
Court clerk – Paul