Republic v Mike Tyson Oketch [2017] KEHC 7315 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7315 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- EM Muchoki
- Case number
- Criminal Case 12 of 2015
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- EM Muchoki
- Case number
- Criminal Case 12 of 2015
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was entirely hearsay, with no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the murder. Key witnesses, including those alleged to have witnessed the incident, denied seeing the accused commit the offence. The only evidence placing the accused at the scene was his presence with a club, which was neither produced in court nor forensically connected to the crime. In the absence of any credible evidence, the court held that it would be futile to put the accused on his defence. Accordingly, the accused was found to have no case to answer and was acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused is found not guilty of murder and is acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Applicant Counsel: Miss KimaniMike Tyson Oketch
Defendant Counsel: Miss Odhong03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 02
Whether the evidence adduced connected the accused to the offence of murder beyond hearsay.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution, represented by Mr. Muia and Miss Kimani, argued that the evidence from seven witnesses, including the post-mortem by Dr. Dickson Muchala, established that the deceased died from blunt force trauma and that the accused was present at the scene with a club, suggesting his involvement in the murder.
- Respondent
- Miss Odhong, for the accused, submitted that the evidence was purely hearsay, with no direct eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the act. Key witnesses denied seeing the accused commit the offence, and the alleged weapon was neither produced nor forensically linked to the accused.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
A prima facie case is established where a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind, would convict if the accused remained silent.
- 02
Section 306(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75)
An accused person must not be put on his defence unless there is credible evidence linking him to the offence charged.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was entirely hearsay, with no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the murder. Key witnesses, including those alleged to have witnessed the incident, denied seeing the accused commit the offence. The only evidence placing the accused at the scene was his presence with a club, which was neither produced in court nor forensically connected to the crime. In the absence of any credible evidence, the court held that it would be futile to put the accused on his defence. Accordingly, the accused was found to have no case to answer and was acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Obiter and limits
- Forensic evidence would have been required to confirm that the accused had handled the club allegedly seen at the scene.
- Even if the club had been exhibited, there was no evidence to confirm it was the weapon used to inflict the fatal injury.
Court disposition
acquittal
- The accused is found not guilty of murder and is acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
HCCRC NO. 12 OF 2015
REPUBLIC …................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MIKE TYSON OKETCH ….................................. ACCUSED
RULING
The accused was charged with the murder of Washington Okoth on 26th December 2013. The prosecution called a total of seven witnesses including Dr. Dickson Muchala (PW7) who confirmed that the deceased died as a result of a severe injury to the head due to blunt force trauma.
On 14th February 2017 this Court heard the submissions of Miss Odhong, the Advocate for the accused and Mr. Muia, Prosecution Counsel and this Court is at this stage required to determine whether a prima facie case was established against the accused person sufficiently to warrant him to be put on his defence; a prima facie case being one where a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind would convict even were the accused to remain silent when put on his defence.
Applying that test to this case it is my finding that the accused has no case to answer. The evidence against the accused person is purely hearsay. Even PW1 and PW3 who are alleged to have witnessed the murder denied that they did. PW1 (Boaz Onyango Arika) a cousin of the deceased, in examination in-chief testified that he arrived at the scene after the incident. He found the deceased lying close to the house with the accused standing nearby with a club.
In cross-examination he vehemently disputed that he saw the accused beating the deceased. The other alleged eye witness was PW3 (Jared Omondi). This witness stated that the only role he played was to take the deceased to hospital at the request of PW1 and one Benson. According to him he was in his house sleeping when the incident is alleged to have occurred. The deceased's mother (PW2) and father (PW4) all heard about the incident. They did not even see the deceased at the scene as he had been taken to hospital. Whereas the Assistant Chief (PW5) alleges to have been told that the accused was among the young men who fought the deceased there is no evidence from those who allegedly told him so to confirm it. Even PW3 who he alleges was an eye witness denied it and stated he was asleep in his house only to be awakened to take the victim to hospital. The closest the prosecution came to connecting the accused to this crime was PW1(Boaz) testimony that he saw the accused with a club. However that club was never exhibited and even if it had been exhibited there would have been need to confirm it was the one that was used to inflict the injury on the deceased. Forensic evidence would also have been required to confirm that indeed the accused had handled that club. In the absence of such evidence it would be futile to put the accused on his defence. Accordingly I find that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence. I find him not guilty of murder and acquit him under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He should be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and delivered at Kisumu this 9th day of March 2017
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Miss Kimani for State
Accused person
Court Assistant – Serah Sidera
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.