[2024] KEHC 777 (KLR)
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the applicable legal standards, found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. The court applied the test from Ramanlal T. Bhatt v R, holding that if the prosecution...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 777 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nyumoo M’Ikotha
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 75 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Accused to be put on his defence.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- 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
Nyumoo M’Ikotha
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant being put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if unchallenged, could lead to a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the applicable legal standards, found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. The court applied the test from Ramanlal T. Bhatt v R, holding that if the prosecution evidence is such that a reasonable tribunal could convict if no explanation is offered, then the accused must be put on his defence. The court noted that the prosecution had called seven witnesses and presented evidence addressing the elements of the offence. In accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and relevant case law, the court ruled that the accused should...
Court Disposition
Accused to be put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused shall be put on his defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The rights of the accused under section 306(2) shall be explained to him.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Republic v M’Ikotha (Criminal Case 75 of 2015) [2024] KEHC 777 (KLR) (31 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 777 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 75 of 2015
EM Muriithi, J
January 31, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Nyumoo M’Ikotha
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that he “on the 9th day of September, 2015 at Antuambui Location in Igembe North Sub-County within Meru County jointly with another not before the court murderderd Richard Kaberia M’Ekotha.”
2. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to trial, the prosecution calling 7 witnesses to prove the charge.
3. The Prosecution filed Written Submissions dated 8/10/2023 urging that it had by its witnesses established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on is defence. The defence did not file any submissons.
4. The court has considered as required under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code whether there is the evidence that the accused person committed the offence. At this stage, the court considers the prosecution evidence to establish whether a prima facie case exists, which as held in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v R (1957) EA 332, 335 is “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. Where the court has considered that there is not established a prima facie case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, see Murimi v R (1967) EA 542 and Wachira v R (1975) EA 262, and the Court is required to give full reasons for the decision.
6. Where the court finds that a prima facie case has been established as held in Kibera Karimi v R (1979) KLR 36 (Trevelyan & Todd JJ) the court is not required to give reasons for the finding so as not to prejudice the fair trial of the case by giving the impression that the court has already made up its mind without hearing the defence. See also Festo Wandera Mukando v R (1976 – 80) KLR 1626 and Antony Njue Njeru v R, Nairobi C.A. Cr. Appeal No. 77 of 2006 and the Kenya Judiciary Criminal Procedure Benchbook, 2018 at 99-100.
7. The court considers that there is the evidence that the accused person committed the offence, having regard to the elements of the offence of murder.
ORDERS 8. Consequently, the accused shall be put on his defence in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and his rights thereunder shall be explained.Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024. EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAppearancesMr. Masila Principal Prosecution Counsel for the DPP.Ms. Wambulwa for the Accused.