[2018] KEHC 4884 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, through eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the circumstances of the accused's arrest, to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused. Applying the test in Bhatt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 4884 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Defendant: Moses Ndau Kimani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 58 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- case to answer found; accused put on defence
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Respondent
Moses Ndau Kimani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to require the accused to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to warrant the accused to answer the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, through eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the circumstances of the accused's arrest, to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused. Applying the test in Bhatt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented, and therefore the accused must be put on his defence to respond to the charge.
Court Disposition
case to answer found; accused put on defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
- The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 58 OF 2016
REPUBLIC .................................................... PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MOSES NDAU KIMANI .................... ACCUSED PERSON
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. The Accused Person, Moses Ndau Kimani (“Accused Person”) is charged with murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. He is accused of murdering Doris Muthoni Maina (“Deceased”) on 20/09/2014 at Githunguchu Location in Gatundu South Sub-County within Nakuru County.
2. The Prosecution called eight seven witnesses to prove its case. The narrative emerging from the Prosecution witnesses was that the Accused Person attacked the Deceased with a knife in the Deceased’s home in the morning of 20/09/2014 and then fled. The testimony claimed that after the Deceased’s screams attracted attention, some people gave chase, caught up with the Accused Person, and arrested him. A pathologist confirmed the death and testified that the cause of death was consistent with the Prosecution theory; and the arresting officer confirmed the manner of arrest.
3. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court is required to make a finding whether the Prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the Accused Person to be put on his defence or whether the case should be stopped at this point. The test to be utilized is the famous one stated in Bhatt –vs- R [1957] EA 332:whether, as a matter of law – without taking any conclusive view of the credibility and probative value of the evidence presented – the Prosecution has adduced reasonable sufficient evidence of the matter in respect of which it has the burden of proof. Reasonable sufficient evidence is one which a reasonable tribunal could convict.
4. In my view, the Prosecution has placed enough material to make this a fit case to require the Accused Person to respond to the evidence adduced.
5. Consequently, the Court finds that the Accused Person has a case to answer and puts him on his defence.The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Delivered at Kiambu this 2nd day of August, 2018.
……………………………………
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE