[2023] KEHC 20708 (KLR)
The court, after evaluating the testimonies of the nine prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced, found that the evidence meets the threshold for a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal T Bhatt v Republic. The court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly addressing itself to the law and evidence, could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 20708 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Alfred Muthengi Kiania; Defendant: Virginia Kaura Gerald; Defendant: Erick Kinyua Mutegi; Defendant: Joseph Kanampiu Kiania; Defendant: Kirongo Kanampiu Riuciani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 7 of 2018
- 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 are called upon to make their defence.
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- 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
Alfred Muthengi Kiania
Defendant
Virginia Kaura Gerald
Defendant
Erick Kinyua Mutegi
Defendant
Joseph Kanampiu Kiania
Defendant
Kirongo Kanampiu Riuciani
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 meets the threshold for a case to answer under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after evaluating the testimonies of the nine prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced, found that the evidence meets the threshold for a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal T Bhatt v Republic. The court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly addressing itself to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the prosecution has established a case to answer against all accused persons. In accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused are called upon to give their defence, either by making an unsworn statement or on oath. The court refrained from giving detailed reasons at this stage to avoid...
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and are called upon to make their defence.
Orders
- Each accused person is called upon to give their defence as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, either by making an unsworn statement or on oath.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Republic v Kiania & 4 others (Criminal Case 7 of 2018) [2023] KEHC 20708 (KLR) (6 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 20708 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Chuka
Criminal Case 7 of 2018
LW Gitari, J
July 6, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Alfred Muthengi Kiania
1st Accused
Virginia Kaura Gerald
2nd Accused
Erick Kinyua Mutegi
3rd Accused
Joseph Kanampiu Kiania
4th Accused
Kirongo Kanampiu Riuciani
5th Accused
Ruling
1. The accused persons herein have been charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Law of Kenya). The particulars of the offence are that on January 9, 2018, the accused persons, jointly with others not before the court, murdered James Mboko Kaburuge and one Francis Iguna M’Nyiro at Kamuteria Sub-location in Kanjuki Location within Tharaka Nithi County.
2. All the accused persons denied the charge and the matter proceeded to trial with the prosecution calling a total of 9 (nine) witnesses in support of its case against the accused persons before closing its case on April 17, 2023.
3. The question for this court to determine at this stage is whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused person and if so, whether the same is sufficient enough to warrant this court to put them on their defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, it is for this court to determine whether the prosecution’s case, may possibly succeed on its own, though not necessarily.
4. The leading authority on what constitutes a prima facie case is the case of Ramanlal T Bhatt -v- Republic [1957] EA 332. In that case, the court defined a prima facie case as one which a reasonable tribunal properly addressing its mind to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.
5. In the instant case, it is the duty of this court to evaluate the testimonies the nine (9) prosecution witnesses against the charge of murder that the accused person is facing. Having considered the testimonies of the said witnesses and the exhibits produced in court, it is my view that the said evidence meets the threshold that was set out in the case of Bhatt -v- R(supra) in respect of determining whether an accused has a case to answer.
6. As is was held in the case Republic -v- Samuel Karanja Kiria [2009] eKLR, no reasons need to be given for this finding at this stage as this court is yet to hear the explanation of the accused person. Giving reasons would amount to determining the case without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
7. It is therefore sufficient at this stage to inform the accused persons whether they have a case to answer and give them a chance to be heard. I have considered the evidence adduced. I find that the prosecution has made out a case to warrant the accused to be called upon to give their defence as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by addressing the court either in an unsworn statement or on oath.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT CHUKA THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2023. L.W. GITARIJUDGEMs Mukaburu holding brief for Mr. Kijaru for 3rd, 2nd accusedMr. Mwiti for 1st, 4th and 5th accusedThe ruling has been read out in open court.