[2017] KEHC 488 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused, Kiteme Maangi alias Nyamai, for the offence of murder. The evidence included eyewitness testimony regarding the accused's threats and actions, the sequence of events leading to the assault, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 488 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Kiteme Maangi alias Nyamai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 24 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Accused put 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
Kiteme Maangi alias Nyamai
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented is sufficient for a reasonable tribunal to convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused, Kiteme Maangi alias Nyamai, for the offence of murder. The evidence included eyewitness testimony regarding the accused's threats and actions, the sequence of events leading to the assault, and the medical evidence confirming the cause of death as subdural haematoma due to trauma. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation is offered by the defence. Consequently, the accused was put on his defence...
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence pursuant to Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 OF 2015
REPUBLIC......................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
KITEME MAANGI ALIASNYAMAI...................ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. Kiteme Maangi aliasNyamaiis charged with the offence of Murdercontrary to Section 203as read with Section 204of the Penal Code (Cap. 63), Laws of Kenya.Particulars of the offence are that on the 3rdday of November, 2010 at around 3. 00 p.m.at Kalua Village Musukini Sub-location, Mutitu Location, Mutitu Districtwithin Kitui County Murdered Katambo Maangi(Deceased).
2. Facts of the case are that the Accused and Deceased were step-brothers and had a land dispute that was being arbitrated upon by the clan. On the 3rd November, 2010the Deceased passed by the home of PW1, Kakuo Maangihis mother where he was given a cooking stove (jiko) but not flour that he needed. Thereafter PW3 Titus Muthambi Janeand PW4 Ruth Mwendewere on the farm tilling land at about 8. 00 a.m.when the Accused passed by. PW3 heard him screaming vowing to kill the Deceased. He carried a panga that was tucked on the side of his belt and a club. He followed the Accused. The Deceased was sitting under a tree. He confronted the Deceased, they argued and the Deceased ran away being pursued by the Accused who caught up with him and assaulted him using the weapon that he had. In the meantime people who heard screams gathered. The Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained.
3. The police on being notified visited the scene and removed the body of the Deceased to the Kitui District Mortuary.A postmortem was later performed by PW6, Doctor Patrick Mutukuwho opined that the cause of death was subdural haematoma due to depressed skull fracture due to trauma (Assault) hence the case.
4. To put the Accused on his defence, the duty was upon the Prosecution to establish a prima faciecase against him. What constitutes a prima faciecase was clearly stated in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic (1957) EA 332where the court stated thus:
“……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………. 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.”
5. From the foregoing it is apparent that the Prosecution has established a prima faciecase against the Accused requiring him to be put on his defence which I hereby do pursuant to the provisions of Section 306(2)of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kitui this 11th day of January, 2017.
L. N. MUTENDE
JUDGE