[2018] KEHC 6338 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through six witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6338 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Mikelina Mwontura; Defendant: Paul Mururu alias Kilebwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 25 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to enter their defence.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure, Burden of Proof
- 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
Mikelina Mwontura
Defendant
Paul Mururu alias Kilebwa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to require them to enter their defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through six witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation was offered. Therefore, the accused persons are required to enter their defence as provided by law. The court also informed the accused of their rights regarding the manner of their defence and the calling of witnesses.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to enter their defence.
Orders
- Each accused is called upon to enter into their defence.
- Each accused is informed of the right to address the court, either personally or by advocate, to give evidence on own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his or her defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE 25 OF 2012
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
MIKELINA MWONTURA............................1ST ACCUSED
PAUL MURURU alias KILEBWA................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
Whether accused has case to answer
[1] The two accused persons named above were charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal code CAP 63 of the Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence are that on 16th day of March 2012 at Ntoombo village, Kimachia Location in Tigania West District within Meru County, jointly with others not before court, murdered John Npaaru.
[2] The prosecution called 6 witnesses. Upon close of their case, the prosecution and the defence submitted each in support of their respective stand points.
[3] Now, the task of the court is to consider the evidence so far tendered by the prosecution to determine whether a prima facie case has been established to justify calling upon the accused to enter his defence.
[4] According to the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335:
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] I have carefully considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution. I have also considered the arguments by the state counsel and the defence counsel. At this stage, it suffices to state that, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused persons as to require them to enter into their defence. Accordingly, each accused is called upon to enter into their defence. Each of the accused person is also informed of the right to address the court, either personally or by advocate, to give evidence on own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his or her defence. The accused or their advocate shall state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself.
Dated, signed and delivered in court at Meru this 4th day of June 2018
----------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Namiti for State
Anampiu for both accused – absent
Omari holding brief
1st accused – present
2nd accused – present
----------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE