[2024] KEHC 15274 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused. The evidence showed that the accused assaulted the victim, resulting in injuries that led to the victim's death. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Joseph Njoroge Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 41 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether Accused Has a Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to defend himself.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Malice Aforethought
- 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
Joseph Njoroge Mwangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether Accused Has a Case to Answer
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 presented proves causation of death with malice aforethought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused. The evidence showed that the accused assaulted the victim, resulting in injuries that led to the victim's death. The court applied the principle that a prima facie case is established if a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. Accordingly, the accused was called upon to defend himself under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to defend himself.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence pursuant to Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Republic v Mwangi (Criminal Case 41 of 2014) [2024] KEHC 15274 (KLR) (Crim) (3 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15274 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Case 41 of 2014
LN Mutende, J
December 3, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Joseph Njoroge Mwangi
Accused
Ruling
1. Joseph Njoroge Mwangi was indicted for murder of Julius Mungai which occurred on 16th November, 2013 after the victim was fatally wounded on 5th November, 2023.
2. PW1 Loice Njoki Mwangi was with the accused when he recognized the victim, his uncle whom he had assaulted previously and was convicted thereby serving one (1) year jail term.
3. On the fateful night, on seeing the victim, the accused dashed towards him and upon PW1 reaching them the accused referred to the victim as a dog and vowed that he (victim) would see him. The two (2) fought. PW1 attempted to stop them from fighting but the fight intensified. The accused overpowered the victim who fell down and the accused ran away.
4. PW2 Zacharia Chege Njoroge who was passing by witnessed the fight as PW1 endeavored to separate the two. After the victim was injured as they contemplated going to the Police Station they encountered an Administration Police Sergeant who telephoned the Police.
5. The Police who went to the scene of the incident took the victim to Gatundu District Hospital where he was admitted and subsequently he succumbed to injuries sustained.
6. The victim was subjected to postmortem examination. PW9 Dr. Francis Ngugi who conducted the autopsy concluded that the cause of death was internal bleeding in the cranial cavity, intramuscular and intrathoracic cavities due to assault (blunt trauma).
7. The Prosecution/State has the burden of proof in criminal cases. To put the accused on his defence, evidence presented must be sufficient to support the information presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Bhatt v R. [1957] EA 332 the court stated that:“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.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence…It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
8. To be guilty of murder, there should be sufficient evidence to prove causation of an unlawful act with malice aforethought. Evidence of PW1 and PW2 eye witnesses to the act was sufficient to require the accused to render an explanation of what happened.
9. In the result, the Prosecution having established a prima facie case against accused, I do call upon him to defend himself pursuant to Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI, THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024. L. N. MUTENDEJUDGE