[2013] KEHC 1797 (KLR)
At the close of the prosecution's case, no evidence was tendered to prove the death of the alleged victim or to connect the accused with the offence of murder. The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case as required by law. Consequently, the accused could not be called upon to make his defence, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1797 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Mutua Kiminza
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 21 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Acquittal
- 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
Mutua Kiminza
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether there was evidence connecting the accused to the offence of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
At the close of the prosecution's case, no evidence was tendered to prove the death of the alleged victim or to connect the accused with the offence of murder. The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case as required by law. Consequently, the accused could not be called upon to make his defence, and the only lawful course was to acquit him under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court relied on the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that a prima facie case requires more than mere suspicion or possibility of guilt. In the absence of any evidence linking the accused to the offence, the court found him not guilty and ordered his...
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused, Mutua Kiminza, is found not guilty and acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
No. 106/2013
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 21 OF 2010
REPUBLIC ………………………………………..PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MUTUA KIMINZA....................................................ACCUSED
RULING
Mutua Kiminza, 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 are that on the night of 9th and 10th August, 2003 at Mwang’a village Kaluva sub-location, Nzangathi location in Kitui District of the Eastern Province he murdered Joseph Mwova Musyoka.
The facts of the case are that on the 9th August, 2003 the Accused and his brother went to report to the area Chief, Raphael Mbuvi Munyoki (PW1) that the deceased had burnt down their mother’s house. He directed them to search and notify him upon tracing him. On the 10th August, 2003, they returned to the chief and reported that they found him murdered and the body was alongside the road. The chief visited the scene of the incident, carried out independent investigations and arrested two (2) suspects, the accused and his late brother. He took them to the police station. Investigations carried out culminated into the accused being charged.
After the testimony of the chief, the State Counsel sought an adjournment. When the case came up for hearing on the 16th October, 2013 he closed the prosecution’s case.
It was the submission of Mr. Konya, counsel for the accused that there was no factual material evidence to show that the accused committed the offence or that he had the intention to commit it or there was some evidence showing an omission on his part to connect him with the offence. He called upon the court to find that no prima facie case had been established to warrant the accused being put on his defence. The learned State counsel, Mr. Mwangi had nothing to state in response thereto.
The question of what constitutes a prima facie case was dealt with in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt versus Republic [1957] E.A. 332 it was stated thus:-
“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution; the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
At the close of the prosecution’s case, no evidence of death had been tendered. No evidence was adduced to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Consequently no prima facie case has been established against the accused warranting him to be put on his defence.
I make a finding of not guilty in that regard, the accused is therefore acquitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVEREDat MACHAKOS this 23RDday of OCTOBER, 2013.
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE