https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7510

Republic v Maranza (Criminal Case E007 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7510 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7510 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Mombasa Criminal Case E007 of 2025 WM Kagendo., J May 28, 2026 Between The Republic Prosecution and David Maranza Accused Ruling 1.The accused David Maranza person herein has been charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on the 9th April 2025 at Tudor-Kiziwi area, Mvita sub-county within Mombasa County, murdered one Patrick Gathuita. 2.The accused person was arraigned in Court where the information was read out to him, and he pleaded not guilty. 3.I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution. At this stage, the issue for determination before this court is whether the evidence so far presented warrants calling upon the accused person to defend himself i.e whether the accused person has a case to answer or not. Analysis and Determination 4.The prosecution called a total of 11 witnesses to support their case. From the evidence on record, the deceased died due multiple injuries leading to multiple organ failure. 5.In Republic vs Abdi Ibrahim Owl (2013) eKLR, a prima facie case was defined as follows;“‘Prima facie’ is a latin term defined by Black’s law dictionary, 8th edition, as “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.” ‘prima facie case’ is defined as “the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.”In simple terms, it refers to the establishment of a rebuttable presumption that an accused person is guilty of the offence charged, unless the contrary is proved.1.It is noteworthy that a prima facie case does not necessarily mean a case that must ultimately succeed. The finding merely implies that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence which, if left uncontroverted, could sustain a conviction. The final determination of guilt still requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, a higher standard that will be assessed at the conclusion of the entire trial.2.This court is also mindful of the caution expressed in Festo Wandera Mukando vs Republic (1980) KLR 103, where Trevelyan and Chesoni, jj stated;“….we once more draw attention to the inadvisability of giving reasons for holding that an accused has a case to answer. It can prove embarrassing to the Court and, in an extreme case, may require an appellate court to set aside an otherwise sound judgement. Where a submission of ‘no case’ is rejected, the Court should say no more than it is. It is otherwise where submission is upheld, when reasons should be given; for then that is the end of the case or the count or counts concerned.” 6.In light of the above, the question before this court is whether, based on the evidence adduced so far, a reasonable tribunal properly directing itself to the law and the evidence could convict the accused persons if they elected to remain silent. 7.Having carefully evaluated the evidence presented, and without delving into detailed findings at this stage, I am satisfied that the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficient to require the accused person to be placed on his defence. 8.Accordingly, I find that the accused person has a case to answer and is hereby placed on his defence pursuant to Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. His rights under Article 50 (2) (i), (k) and (l) the Constitution shall be explained to him in a language he understands, in the presence of his legal counsel. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MOMBASA ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.WENDY KAGENDO MICHENIJUDGEIn the presence of;-The accused person and his advocate Mr. MUTWIRI Mr. Sirima for the stateBebora court assistantSigned by/for:HON. LADY JUSTICE WENDY MICHENIMOMBASA HIGH COURTDATE: 2026-06-02 17:42:10