[2023] KEHC 2762 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence presented was based on suspicion and lacked any direct or circumstantial link between the accused and the death of the deceased. None of the witnesses saw the accused commit any act that could have caused...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 2762 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Samuel Jachula Namesa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Vihiga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 11 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Circumstantial Evidence, Acquittal, 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
Samuel Jachula Namesa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
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 sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, linking the accused to the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence presented was based on suspicion and lacked any direct or circumstantial link between the accused and the death of the deceased. None of the witnesses saw the accused commit any act that could have caused the death, and the investigating officer himself testified that there was no evidence connecting the accused to the murder. The court held that suspicion alone is not sufficient for a conviction and, therefore, the accused had no case to answer. As a result, the accused was acquitted and discharged.
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused is acquitted and discharged under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused shall be set free from remand custody unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Namesa (Criminal Case 11 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 2762 (KLR) (24 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 2762 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Vihiga
Criminal Case 11 of 2021
WM Musyoka, J
March 24, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Samuel Jachula Namesa
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused herein faces a murder charge. He is accused of having murdered Johana Bukaya Masua, on April 5, 2019. The evidence recorded from the witnesses is to effect that he was last seen with the deceased, as they went on a drinking spree, where both got very drunk, only for the deceased to be found the next morning dead. None of the witnesses saw the accused assault the deceased, or do anything to him that could lead to his death. There exists no circumstantial evidence to link the accused inexorably to the death. The case for the prosecution is, therefore, largely built on suspicion, which is not adequate for the purpose of conviction.
2. PW1, the widow of the deceased, parted with him on April 4, 2019, he did not return home that night, and she next saw him the following day, badly hurt. PW2, a boda boda operator, was called after the event, to take the deceased to hospital. PW3 was called to go and see the deceased, after the incident. PW4 was the investigating officer, who took charge of the matter after the death was reported; while PW5 was the pathologist, who did the autopsy on the body of the deceased.
3. The investigating officer, who testified as PW4, did not himself have faith in the case. He said that he charged the accused because members of the public arrested him, and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions recommended the prosecution. It was his case that there was no evidence connecting the accused to the death.
4. In his words, he said:“From investigation I minuted the file to ODPP for advice as there was no evidence connecting the accused to the murder. The ODPP advised that he be taken to court. Apart from members of that village, who burnt all the houses at the home of the suspect, there is no other evidence connecting the accused to the murder in question.”
5. It is my finding and holding, therefore, that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case to warrant that the accused person be put on his defence. I find that he has no case to answer, and I accordingly acquit and discharge him. He shall be set free from remand custody, if he is being so held, unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023WM MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Erick Zalo, Court Assistant.Ms. Kagai, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Republic.Mr. Mbaka, Advocate for the accused person.