[2025] KEHC 9202 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence, if left unchallenged, could lead to a conviction for murder. The court relied on the standard set out in Ramawal Trumbaklal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 9202 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Iria Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E012 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused placed on his defence.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Peter Iria Kamau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant his being placed on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced, if unchallenged, would be sufficient to convict the accused of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence, if left unchallenged, could lead to a conviction for murder. The court relied on the standard set out in Ramawal Trumbaklal Bhatt v Republic, holding that it is not required at this stage to determine the credibility or conclusiveness of the evidence, but only whether a reasonable tribunal could convict if no defence is offered. Accordingly, the accused was placed on his defence pursuant to Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is hereby placed on his defence pursuant to Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E012 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 9202 (KLR) (24 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 9202 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyahururu
Criminal Case E012 of 2024
LN Mutende, J
June 24, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Peter Iria Kamau
Accused
Ruling
1. Peter Iria Kamau, the Accused, was arraigned following allegations of having murdered Eunice Wangare Kamau in contravention of Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. At the close of the prosecution’s case the State/Prosecution is expected to adduce evidence that would require the Accused to defend himself. Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides thus;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. In compliance with the law the prosecution presented evidence of witnesses who depicted the Accused a brother to the deceased as an individual who caused extreme fear to the family. On the fateful date, he created and maintained a state of extreme fear to his siblings and mother which resulted into the deceased being hit with a stone. She was rushed to hospital but she succumbed to death.
4. To place the Accused on his defence there should be sufficient evidence such that if it remains unchallenged it can be persuasive enough to return a verdict of guilty. This was stated in the case of Ramawal Trumbaklal Bhatt v Republic [1957] EA 332 where it was held that;“Prima facie case was defined as one on which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. At this stage, the court is not required to decide finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit or whether, if believed, it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively,-that final determination can only properly be made when the case for the defence has been heard.…..”
5. PW1 Dr. Cyrus Njoroge Ng’ang’a conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased that was identified by PW9 David Kamau Kabachia, her father and two (2) others. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was severe head injury secondary to blunt head trauma causing massive epidural haematoma.
6. According to evidence of PW2 R.W.K., PW3 Lucy Epron, PW4 D.K. the assault was occasioned by the Accused who caused the mayhem and picked a stone that he used to hit the deceased.
7. Evidence on record requires the Accused to be placed on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which I hereby do.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 24THDAY OF JUNE, 2025. ……………………L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE