[2023] KEHC 26926 (KLR)
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of eight witnesses, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused, Maria Wanja Muriuki. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, in accordance with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 26926 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Maria Wanja Muriuki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 12 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and is put on her 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
Maria Wanja Muriuki
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant her being put on her defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to convict the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of eight witnesses, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused, Maria Wanja Muriuki. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is required to be put on her defence. The court emphasized that detailed reasons are not necessary at this stage unless the accused is to be acquitted, as per established legal precedent. The ruling is thus limited to the finding that the prosecution has met the threshold for a case to answer, and the accused must now...
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and is put on her defence.
Orders
- The accused, Maria Wanja Muriuki, is found to have a case to answer and is put on her defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Republic v Muriuki (Criminal Case 12 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 26926 (KLR) (13 December 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 26926 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Embu
Criminal Case 12 of 2019
LM Njuguna, J
December 13, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Maria Wanja Muriuki
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused person herein was 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 29/4/2019 at Muondu Village, Riandu Location in Mbeere North Sub-County within Embu County murdered Sebastian Muriuki Mbaka. Upon arraignment in court, she pleaded not guilty and a plea of not guilty was entered.
2. The case proceeded for trial and wherein the prosecution called eight (8) 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 her 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. [See Ramanlal 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 person. She therefore has a case to answer and is put on her defence.
8. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023. L. NJUGUNAJUDGE