[2023] KEHC 758 (KLR)
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against both accused persons. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the court ruled that each accused has a case to answer and should be placed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 758 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nelson Muriithi Kanyoti; Defendant: Agostino Mugo Nyaga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E017 of 2020
- 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 placed on their defence.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, 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
Nelson Muriithi Kanyoti
Defendant
Agostino Mugo Nyaga
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 placed on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to convict the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against both accused persons. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the court ruled that each accused has a case to answer and should be placed on their defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that at this stage, detailed reasons are not required unless the accused are acquitted at the close of the prosecution's case.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their defence.
Orders
- Each accused person is placed on their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Republic v Kanyoti & another (Criminal Case E017 of 2020) [2023] KEHC 758 (KLR) (8 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 758 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Embu
Criminal Case E017 of 2020
LM Njuguna, J
February 8, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Nelson Muriithi Kanyoti
1st Accused
Agostino Mugo Nyaga
2nd Accused
Ruling
1. The accused persons herein were charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence being that on March 23, 2020 at Karerema village, Nthawa Location, within Mbeere North Sub–County, within Embu County, murdered Harrison Njue Njogu. Upon arraignment in court, they pleaded not guilty and a plea of not guilty was entered for each of them.
2. The case proceeded for trial and wherein the prosecution called seven (7) witnesses in support of its case; after which the prosecution closed its case.
3. Under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 75 Laws of Kenya), this court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling or a decision on whether an accused person has a case to answer or not. Under section 306(1), when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused persons committed the offence should, 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.
4. Under section 306(2) on the other hand, when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is evidence that the accused person committed the offence, the court should proceed to place the accused person on his defence and whereby the accused is supposed to present evidence in his defence.
5. As such, at this stage, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination as to whether the same presents a prima facie case that would warrant this court to call upon the accused persons to give their defence. Under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person. [See Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335].
6. However, it is trite that, where the court is not acquitting the accused person at the close of prosecutions’ case, there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer. Reasons should only be given where the submissions of a no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted. [See Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103].
7. I have considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution in this matter as required of this court and from the entirety of the said evidence, it is my view that the prosecution has made up a prima facie case against the accused persons. Each of them has a case to answer and they are placed on their defence.
8. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023. L. NJUGUNAJUDGE……………………………………….…..for the Accused…………………………………………….for the State