https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7067

Republic v Lokedi (Criminal Case E005 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 7067 (KLR) (19 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7067 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kapenguria Criminal Case E005 of 2023 RPV Wendoh, J May 19, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Emmanuel Lokedi Accused Ruling 1.The accused person, Emmanuel Lokedi faces a charge of Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.The particulars of the charge are that on 25/9/2023 at Kokwakales village in Mtembur Sub Location, within West Pokot County, murdered Cheposetem Torepe. 3.The accused denied committing the offence and the case proceeded to full trial with the prosecution calling a total of four (4) witnesses. 4.PW1 Cornelius Nyangasia is a grandchild to the deceased. He testified that on 26/9/2023, he heard from a phone conversation between his mother and one Catherine his uncles wife, that his grandmother had been hit on the head by the accused, Emmanuel Lokedi and was unconscious. PW1 was sent to check on the grandmother and when he reached Makutano, he met his uncle who informed him that the grandmother had died and the body taken to Kapenguria. PW1 proceeded to Kapenguria Police Station where he found his uncle, the accused Emmanuel Lokedi under arrest. He confirmed that the grandmother had indeed died and on 28/4/2023 he attended the post mortem where he identified the body and noted that the deceased had injuries to the forehead, back of the head, and the head was swollen. 5.PW2 PC Jarso Gargallo of Mtembur Police Post testified that on 26/9/2023 at about 9.25 am, while at the Post, Emmanuel went there and reported that on 25/9/2023, he fought with his mother over family issues and injured her with a stick. He booked the report in OB 04/2619/2023 and that he further reported that when he checked on the mother the next day he found her dead. PW2 visited the accused’s home, found deceased in the house and confirmed that indeed she had died, was bleeding from the mouth, the head was swollen. They reported to the DCI who collected the body and the accused was detained for further investigations. 6.PW3 Dr Luke Njite Ambuka of Kapenguria Referral Hospital performed the post mortem on the deceased. He observed that there were bruises on the head, the parietal region and right eye; swollen and fractured scalp with massive haemorhage; that the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma. Internally, he found massive scalp haemorhage between the skin covering and scalp and there was acute subdural haematoma. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was severe head injury due to acute haematoma as a result of an assault. 7.PW4 Sgt Edward Ndemo is the Investigations Officer in this case. He visited the scene of crime on 26/9/2023 after accused surrendered himself at Mtembur Police Post. He observed that there were drag marks from outside into the house; that accused who had been taken from the post showed them where the stick he used in assaulting the deceased was and it was produced as an exhibit. From the investigations, he learnt that accused had wanted to sell a cow and the mother informed accused’s wife who stopped the sale; that accused was upset and went to assault the deceased. 8.At the close of the prosecution case, none of the Counsel filed submissions but urged the court to consider the evidence on record. The single issue is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the Accused to warrant the accused being placed on his defence pursuant to section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. What is a Prima Facie Case? 9.Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition defines ‘prima facie’ case as“Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.”The same dictionary defines prima facie case as“the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption, that an accused person is guilty of the offence as charged.”The term ‘prima facie’ case was better explained in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic (1957) EA 332, at page 334 - 335 where the court said“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 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.” 10.The offence of Murder is defined in section 203 of the Penal Code as“Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.” 11.The three ingredients that need to be established by the prosecution in a charge of Murder are:-1.Proof of death;2.Proof that the accused caused the unlawful act or omission that led to the death.3.Proof of malice aforethought. Proof of Death. 12.PW1, a grandchild to the deceased identified the deceased’s body to the Doctor PW3, who performed the post mortem on the deceased’s body. PW2 visited the home of the deceased and found the deceased’s lifeless body in her house. DW3 found the cause of death of the deceased to be severe head injury due to acute haematoma as a result of assault. These findings were corroborated by the testimony of PW1, 2 and 4 who saw the injuries on the deceased’s body. I found that the fact of the deceased’s death is not in issue. The deceased died, not of a natural death but injuries inflicted on her. Whether Accused Committed the Act. 13.None of the witnesses who testified in court witnessed the Murder. Infact none of the witnesses called were able to tell the court what happened except what PW2 told the court that the accused allegedly told him when he surrendered to the police post alleging to have fought with his mother. 14.PW1 alleged that one Catherine, his uncle’s wife, informed his mother about the incident. However, the said Catherine never testified as a witness. The Investigating Officer indicated to court that witnesses had declined to come to testify. Apart from the accused allegedly surrendering himself to the Police Station, there is no eye witness or direct evidence to connect the accused to the Murder. 15.Was there any circumstantial evidence? In the case of Abanga v Republic LLR No. 3975 (CAK), the court set out the criteria to be considered for the court to rely on circumstantial evidence. They are as follows; -“i.the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;ii.those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;iii.the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.” 16.In this case, there is also no circumstance that points at accused as the culprit save for suspicion because he went to report to Police Post but no confession was taken from him by a Police Officer of the rank of Inspector and above. Suspicion however strong cannot form a basis for conviction. 17.The question is whether a prima facie case has been established against accused for him to be called upon to defend himself. As held in the Bhatt case, if this court properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence adduced and, if no explanation is offered by the accused in his defence, then this court cannot convict the accused. 18.I therefore find that there is not sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to warrant accused being placed on his defence. This court has no option but acquit accused under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He is set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAPENGURIA ON THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.R. WENDOHJUDGEIn the presence of:-Prosecution Counsel – Ms. Koech.Mr. Bororio for Accused.Accused – present.Juma/Hellen - Court Assistants.