https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11645

Republic v Maweu (Criminal Case E083 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 11645 (KLR) (Crim) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11645 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Criminal Criminal Case E083 of 2021 AM Muteti, J July 6, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Clinton Wambua Maweu Accused Ruling 1.The accused person was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on the 17th Day of October 2021 at around 1930Hrs at Dandora area Dandora sub-location within Umoja 3 Nairobi County Clinton Wambua Maweu Murdered Consolata Wambui Kipsoi. 3.The prosecution called a total of 9 witnesses in support of the murder information. 4.The accused and the deceased were in a love relationship and according to Emma Chepkemoi and on 17th October 2021 at about 9:00 a.m the accused person called the deceased while they were together in the house asking her if she could go to his place for lunch. The deceased agreed to go to Clinton’s house. 5.According to Emma Chepkemoi PW1, the deceased came to live with her after moving out of the accused person’s house, because according to the deceased the accused person had promised her that he would be paying fees for the deceased’s son and that the accused had reneged on the promise. 6.The deceased person left the house together with PW1 at about 10:00 am as Pw1 went to work and proceeded to the accused person’s house. 7.Further evidence revealed that when the deceased got to the accused person’s house for some unknown reason the accused person stabbed and she ended up at Mama Lucy where she died while undergoing treatment. 8.Following the death, a post mortem was performed and the doctor formed the opinion that the deceased’s death was as a result of a penetrating sharp force trauma to the neck. 9.The prosecution therefore was able to establish that the deceased person suffered the injury resulting into her death while she was in the accused person’s house and that the accused person was responsible for the stabbing of the deceased. 10.the totality of the evidence tendered by the prosecution established that there was death, the death was as s result of an act attributed to the accused and that there was no other reasonable hypothesis that would tend to weaken the evidence against the accused person as the person who may have caused the death of the deceased. 11.At this stage the court is required under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code to satisfy itself that a prima facie case has been made requiring the accused person to be placed on his defense. 12.In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335, the court stated 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 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.” 13.The court in the instant case received credible evidence that a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence would most likely convict the accused person for the offense of murder if no explanation was to be offered by the defense. The court remains fully aware that the burden of proof wholly rests on the shoulders of the prosecution throughout the case and the court is not by means shifting the burden of proof to the accused. 14.The deceased person was stabbed at a critical part of the body thus malice aforethought could easily be inferred. 15.The court therefore finds that the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring the accused person to be placed on his defense. 16.The accused person shall therefore elect the nature of defense to tender, 17.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.A. M. MUTETIJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: HabibaMogere for the StateArio AccusedAccused: Present