[2022] KEHC 13655 (KLR)
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of eleven witnesses, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the court ruled that the accused...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 13655 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Mary Anne Wanjiru Mithamo; Defendant: Eleanor Ntinyari Nteere; Defendant: James Gitari Mboani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 1 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, 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
Mary Anne Wanjiru Mithamo
Defendant
Eleanor Ntinyari Nteere
Defendant
James Gitari Mboani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant putting them on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to convict the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of eleven witnesses, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the court ruled that the accused persons have a case to answer and should be put on their defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that at this stage, detailed reasons are not required unless the accused are to be acquitted, as per established legal principles.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
Orders
- The accused persons are put on their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Republic v Mithamo & 2 others (Criminal Case 1 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 13655 (KLR) (12 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13655 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Embu
Criminal Case 1 of 2019
LM Njuguna, J
October 12, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Mary Anne Wanjiru Mithamo
1st Accused
Eleanor Ntinyari Nteere
2nd Accused
James Gitari Mboani
3rd Accused
Ruling
1. The accused persons herein were charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence being that on October 20, 2013 at Embu Main GK Prison in Embu County jointly murdered Wilson Waweru Mbugi. Upon arraignment in court, they pleaded not guilty and a plea of not guilty was entered.
2. The case proceeded for trial and wherein the prosecution called eleven (11) witnesses in support of its case; after which it closed its case.
3. Under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap. 75 Laws of Kenya, this court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling or a decision on whether an accused person has a case to answer or not. Under section 306(1), when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused person committed the offence should, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
4. Under section 306(2) on the other hand, when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is evidence that the accused person committed the offence, the court should proceed to put the accused to his defence and whereby the accused is supposed to present evidence in his defence.
5. As such, at this stage, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination as to whether the same presents a prima facie case that would warrant this court to call upon the accused person to give his defence. Under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person. [SeeRamanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335].
6. However, it is trite that, where the court is not acquitting the accused person at the close of prosecutions’ case, there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer. Reasons should only be given where the submissions of a no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted. (See Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103).
7. I have considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution in this matter as required of this court and from the entirety of the evidence, it is my view that the prosecution has made up a prima facie case against the accused persons. They therefore have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
8. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022. L. NJUGUNAJUDGE………………………………………..............for the Accused………………………………………..……………for the State