[2024] KEHC 8684 (KLR)
The court, after considering the entirety of the prosecution's evidence, found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principles from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court determined that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8684 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Fredrick Murithi Mwendwa; Defendant: Jane Wanyaga Njeru; Defendant: Feranjia Muthoni; Defendant: Sarah Mbuya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 19 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and put on their 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
Fredrick Murithi Mwendwa
Defendant
Jane Wanyaga Njeru
Defendant
Feranjia Muthoni
Defendant
Sarah Mbuya
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 persons to warrant putting them on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to require the accused to answer the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the entirety of the prosecution's evidence, found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principles from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence on record which, if uncontroverted, could lead to a conviction. Therefore, the accused persons were found to have a case to answer and were put on their defence. The court noted that detailed reasoning is not required at this stage unless an acquittal is being considered or submissions on no case to answer have been made.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and put on their defence.
Orders
- Each accused person is found to have a case to answer and is put to their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Republic v Mwendwa & 3 others (Criminal Case 19 of 2020) [2024] KEHC 8684 (KLR) (18 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8684 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Embu
Criminal Case 19 of 2020
LM Njuguna, J
July 18, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Fredrick Murithi Mwendwa
1st Accused
Jane Wanyaga Njeru
2nd Accused
Feranjia Muthoni
3rd Accused
Sarah Mbuya
4th Accused
Ruling
1. The accused persons face the charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read together with Section 204 of the Penal Code. Particulars of the charge are that on 09th October 2018 at Ciambugu village, Riandu location in Mbeere North sub-county within Embu County, the accused persons murdered Stanley Irungu.
2. The accused persons took a plea of not guilty and the same was duly entered. The case proceeded to trial and the prosecution called five (5) witnesses and then rested its case.
3. This court is tasked under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with making a ruling on whether or not the accused persons have a case to answer and whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case. The provision states:Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code:“When the evidence of the witnesses for the Prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or any one of the several or any one of the several accused committed the offence shall, 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. The court in the case of RepublicvsAbdi Ibrahim Owi (2013) eKLR, defined a prima facie case as follows:“‘Prima facie’ is a latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition as, “sufficient to establish a fact or raise presumption unless disapproved or rebutted”. ‘Prima facie’ is defined by the same dictionary as “the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.”
5. In other words, a prima facie case is a rebuttable presumption that the accused persons is guilty of the offence. This is the position held at Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhattvs.R (1957) E.A 332 at 335, the court stated as follows:“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’s case, the case is merely one in which on full consideration might possible 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.……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 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, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence”.
6. Nevertheless, where the court is not acquitting the accused person, there is no need to give a deep reasoning in a ruling for case to answer. The case would have been otherwise where there was a submission on ‘no case to answer’ as the court would have been required to give its reasons for considering that the accused has no case to answer.
7. I have considered the evidence by the prosecution in its entirety and it is my considered view that a prima facie case has been established. The accused person has a case to answer and is therefore put to his defense.
8. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. L. NJUGUNAJUDGE…………………………… for the State……………………………1st Accused person……………………………2nd Accused person………………………3rd Accused person………………………….4th Accused person