https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10415

Republic v Kipchirchir (Criminal Case E030 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 10415 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10415 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nakuru Criminal Case E030 of 2020 JK Sergon, J July 13, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Amos Kipchirchir Accused Ruling 1.The accused, Amos Kipchirchir, stands charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Cap 63, Laws of Kenya). The particulars are that on 24th October 2020 at Kapnyangale area of Makongeni Location in Rongai Sub-County within Nakuru County, he murdered Patrick Kimutai Laktano. The Accused pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded for full hearing. 2.The test for determining whether an accused person has a case to answer is well settled in our jurisprudence. In the locus classicus case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 332, the East African Court of Appeal held as follows:“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one 'which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.' This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is 'some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence.' A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence. It is true, as Wilson, J., said, that the court is not required at that stage 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. It may not be easy to define what is meant by a 'prima facie case,' but at least it must mean 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 3.The applicable provision in the High Court is Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75, Laws of Kenya), which provides the framework for the court's determination at the close of the prosecution's case. Under subsection (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 . Conversely, under subsection (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 . 4.The Prosecution called Ten witnesses. PW1, Dr. Titus Ngulungu, a pathologist, testified that he conducted a post-mortem examination on the Deceased on 26th October 2020. He observed multiple sharp-force injuries including a slash wound on the left temporal region measuring 30mm by 15mm involving the skull with a compound fracture, a laceration on the left forehead measuring approximately 30mm by 15mm, an anterior stab wound on the right lower chest measuring 20mm by 8mm, and an oblique stab wound on the mid upper back measuring approximately 25mm by 10mm. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was shock and massive blood loss. The post-mortem report was produced as Exhibit 1. 5.PW2, Aron Chebii, a security guard, testified that on 23rd October 2020 at about 11:30 p.m., he was on duty at a building with electricity light. He saw two men chasing each other at a distance of about 10 metres. He identified both men, whom he knew well from prior social interactions. He testified that the Accused, Amos Kipchirchir, was chasing the Deceased, threw a stone at the Deceased who fell, and then removed a big knife from his waist and stabbed the Deceased. PW2 identified the Accused in open court. 6.PW4, Polycap Lutta Kweyu, a Government Analyst, testified that DNA analysis confirmed that blood stains on the stone, the T-shirt, and the knife matched the DNA of the Deceased. The exhibits were produced as Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 respectively. 7.PW3, Simon Tanui, the area Chief, testified that he was informed that Kipchirchir was responsible. PW6, Nicholas Kirwa, testified that he received a call stating that Kipchirchir had stabbed the deceased and participated in the recovery of the knife. PW5, PW7, PW8, and PW10, relatives of the Deceased, testified to receiving information of the incident and identifying the body. PW9, C.I.P. Harrison Kalimbo Tom, the Investigating Officer, testified to visiting the scene, recovering the exhibits, and arresting the accused. 8.To sustain a conviction for murder, the Prosecution must establish three essential ingredients: the death of the Deceased and the cause thereof; that the unlawful act was committed by the accused; and malice aforethought. The death and cause thereof were established by PW1. The link to the accused was established by the direct eyewitness testimony of PW2, corroborated by forensic evidence linking the deceased's blood to the stone, knife, and T-shirt. Malice aforethought was established by the nature of the injuries and the use of a knife to inflict multiple stab wounds on vulnerable parts of the body. 9.The defence submits that PW2's identification evidence is weak and unreliable. However, PW2 testified that he knew the accused personally, there was electricity light and the area was so clear, he observed the events from about 10 metres away, and he saw the accused throw the stone, remove the knife, and stab the deceased. These are matters of credibility to be tested at the full trial, not at this stage. At the prima facie stage, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence or assess credibility. The question is whether there is evidence which, if believed, could sustain a conviction. I find that there is. 10.The forensic evidence provides compelling corroboration. The deceased's blood was found on the stone, the knife, and the T-shirt. This evidence, viewed objectively, ties the deceased to the very items associated with the assault. The defence's argument that the medical evidence contradicts PW2's account of a stone being thrown does not assist the accused. The blunt force trauma from the stone and the sharp-force injuries from the knife are not mutually exclusive; they form a coherent narrative of a sustained assault. I am satisfied that the prosecution has adduced evidence on all three ingredients of the offence. If the accused offered no explanation, a reasonable tribunal could convict on the basis of this evidence. 11.Having carefully considered the evidence tendered, the submissions of the defence, and the applicable legal principles, I find that the Prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused sufficient to warrant placing him on his defence. The defence submissions regarding the weakness of the identification evidence are matters for the full trial, where credibility will be assessed. 12.Consequently, the accused, Amos Kipchirchir, is found to have a case to answer and is hereby placed on his defence pursuant to Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.J. K. SERGONJUDGEIn presence of:Jamleck C/AMs Anyumba for the State