[2022] KEHC 11155 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused, Edward Moi Munjalu, for the murder of William Kimani Mwangi. Applying the legal standard for a case to answer, as articulated in Republic v. Joseph Shitandi & Another and Republic v. Stephen...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 11155 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Edward Moi Munjalu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 40 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Murder Trial, Case to Answer, 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
Edward Moi Munjalu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if unchallenged, would justify a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused, Edward Moi Munjalu, for the murder of William Kimani Mwangi. Applying the legal standard for a case to answer, as articulated in Republic v. Joseph Shitandi & Another and Republic v. Stephen Chomba Kamau, the court determined that the evidence, if left unchallenged, could result in a conviction. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence or determine the accused's guilt, but only to assess whether there is cogent evidence linking the accused to the offence. Consequently, the accused was informed of his...
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
- The accused is informed of his rights under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to address the court, give evidence, or call witnesses in his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Republic v Munjalu (Criminal Case 40 of 2017) [2022] KEHC 11155 (KLR) (28 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 11155 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kiambu
Criminal Case 40 of 2017
MM Kasango, J
July 28, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Edward Moi Munjalu
Accused
Ruling
1. Edward Moi Munjalu is charged with the offence of murder of William Kimani Mwangi deceased. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution called 14 witnesses before closing its case.
2. The court, at this stage, is considering whether the accused has a case to answer. A case to answer was defined in the holding of the case Republicvs. Joseph Shitandi & Another (2014) eKLR as follows:-“A case to answer is a case where if the accused keeps quiet, the evidence of the prosecution should be such that a conviction will result.”
3. The procedure in determination whether indeed, the accused has a case to answer was discussed in the case Republic Vs. Stephen Chomba Kamau (2021) eKLR thus:-“Republic -v- Samuel Karanja Kiria (2009) eKLR Justice J.B Ojwang (as he then was) stated:-‘The question at this stage is not whether or not the accused is guilty as charged but whether there is cogent evidence of his connection with the circumstances in which killing of deceased occurred. That the concept of prima facie case dictates as a matter of law that an opportunity created by this court for the accused to state his own case regarding the killing. The governing law on this point is well settled ... The Court of Appeal is Criminal Appeal No. 77/2006 expressed that too detailed analysis of evidence stage at no case to answer stage is undesirable it the court is going to put accused on his defence as too much details in the trial court’s ruling could then compromise the evidentiary quality of the defence to be mounted.’”
4. The evidence adduced by the prosecution suffices for the accused to be informed he has a case to answer. He is therefore informed he has a right to address the court as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the accused is informed that he has a right to address the court either personally or by his advocate or to give evidence on his own behalf or to make unsworn statement and to call witnesses in his defence. The accused is now requested to make his election.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022. MARY KASANGOJUDGECoram:Court Assistant: MouriceFor DPP: Mr. KasyokaFor Accused:-Accused : PresentCOURTRULING delivered virtually.MARY KASANGOJUDGE