[2025] KEHC 1015 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony, to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic and the requirements of Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 1015 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nicholas Kithinji Mwikamba Alias Kiangi; Defendant: Julius Njeru Njeru Alias Kaumba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 9 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on their defence.
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, 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
Nicholas Kithinji Mwikamba Alias Kiangi
Defendant
Julius Njeru Njeru Alias Kaumba
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant them being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to require the accused to answer to the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony, to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic and the requirements of Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation is offered by the defence. Consequently, the accused are required to be put on their defence as charged.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on their defence.
Orders
- The accused shall be put on their defence as charged.
- The matter shall be mentioned on 24/03/2025 for the accused to state whether they will give a defence and the mode of defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Republic v Mwikamba alias Kiangi & another (Criminal Case 9 of 2020) [2025] KEHC 1015 (KLR) (20 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 1015 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Chuka
Criminal Case 9 of 2020
LW Gitari, J
February 20, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Nicholas Kithinji Mwikamba Alias Kiangi
1st Accused
Julius Njeru Njeru Alias Kaumba
2nd Accused
Ruling
1. The accused are charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on 7th April 2020, at Mautini Village, Tharaka North Sub-County, jointly with others not before the court, unlawfully murdered Peter Macharia. The accused were charged vide information dated 28/10/2020.
2. The accused person denied the charge. The prosecution called ten witnesses and closed their case. What is pending before me is a Ruling as to whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant this court to order the accused to be called upon to address the court in their defence.
3. Under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the duty of this court is to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused person to be put on their defence. The test of prima facie case was laid down in the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A 332, where the court stated that a prima facie case is one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly addressing its mind to the facts (evidence) and the law, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defense. In determining whether there is a case to answer, the court has to analyze the evidence adduced and the law and come up with its determination.
4. In this case, the prosecution called witnesses who were eye witnesses to the events leading to the death of the deceased. I have considered the evidence adduced by the witnesses and I find that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence which has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused to be called upon to give their defence.
5. Section 306(1) & (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, provides as follows:
6. The accused are at liberty to address the court in their defence as provided under Section 77 they opt to give their defense on oath, they shall be cross-examination by the prosecution. They are also at liberty to call witnesses in support of their defence. Case.
Conclusion 7. The accused have a case to answer and shall be put on their defence as charged.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT CHUKA THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025HON. LADY JUSTICE L. GITARIJUDGEORDERThe matter shall be mentioned on 24/03/2025 for the accused to state whether they will give a defence and the mode of defence.Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 20th day of February 2025HON. LADY JUSTICE L. GITARIJUDGE