[2018] KEHC 4736 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the evidence of eight witnesses, established a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the test from RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R and the requirements of section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that a reasonable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 4736 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Judith Kawawa Muga; Defendant: Dennis Mutuma; Defendant: Gladys Karangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 50 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to enter their defence.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Murder Trial, Burden of Proof, Right to Fair Trial
- 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
Judith Kawawa Muga
Defendant
Dennis Mutuma
Defendant
Gladys Karangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant them being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would justify a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, through the evidence of eight witnesses, established a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the test from RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R and the requirements of section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused persons must be put on their defence and informed of their rights to address the court, give evidence, or call witnesses.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to enter their defence.
Orders
- The accused persons are called upon to enter their defence.
- The accused have been informed of their right to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, and call witnesses in their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 50 OF 2013
REPUBLIC...................................PROSECUTOR
Versus
JUDITH KAWAWA MUGA...........1STACCUSED
DENNIS MUTUMA......................2ND ACCUSED
GLADYS KARANGI....................3RD ACCUSED
RULING
Case to answer
[1] The prosecution closed its case on 9th July, 2018. I now ought to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons as to be called upon to enter on their defence. See section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that:-
“(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] This exercise is not merely mundane ritual; it is an essential part of criminal trial, for it ensures that no one continues to stand trial unless a prima facie case has been established against him at the close of the prosecution’s case. The requirement is enables realization of the right to fair trial and gives effect to the presumption of innocence of the accused at all stages of trial.
[3] what is a Prima facie?It is:-
‘’…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)
[4] Eight witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution in support of murder charges the accused are facing. And upon careful perusal of the said evidence adduced, there is a prima facie case established against the accused. Accordingly, the accused are called upon to enter their defence. They have been informed of the right to address the court, either personally or by advocate, to give evidence on own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in their defence. Now the accused or his advocate shall state to the court whether it is intended to call any witnesses other than the accused person. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Meru this 31st day of July 2018
.........................
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Abubakar for accused person
Mr. Namiti for State
Accused 1 - I understand Kiswahili
Accused 2 – I understand Kiswahili
Accused 3 – I understand Kiswahili
------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE