[2018] KEHC 2087 (KLR)
The court held that, after considering all the evidence and submissions, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons. Applying the test from Bhatt v R, the evidence, if left unchallenged, could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict. Therefore, both accused persons were found to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 2087 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nancy Njeri Njogu; Defendant: Michael Ngene Njogu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 26 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Both accused persons found to have a case to answer and put on their defence.
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Nancy Njeri Njogu
Defendant
Michael Ngene Njogu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
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 presented, taken at its highest, could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, after considering all the evidence and submissions, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons. Applying the test from Bhatt v R, the evidence, if left unchallenged, could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict. Therefore, both accused persons were found to have a case to answer and were put on their defence.
Court Disposition
Both accused persons found to have a case to answer and put on their defence.
Orders
- Both accused persons are put on their defence.
- The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26 OF 2017
REPUBLIC.....................................PROSECUTOR
VS
NANCY NJERI NJOGU................1ST ACCUSED
MICHAEL NGENE NJOGU........2ND ACCUSED
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. The two Accused Persons, Nancy Njeri Njogu and Michael Ngene Njogu, are charged with murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on 10th April, 2017 at Gachie area of Kihara within Kiambu County, the two Accused Persons assaulted Samuel Ng’ang’a Njoroge who later died from the injuries on the 7th day of June, 2017.
2. The Prosecution called six witnesses to establish its case. The Prosecution narrative is that the two Accused Persons – a mother and son – attacked the Deceased because they suspected he had influenced the 1st Accused Person’s other son to take the family car without permission while drunk and caused an accident in the morning of 10/04/2017. John Maina Wanyoike who testified as PW1 was also in the motor vehicle and was also allegedly attacked by the two Accused Persons at the same time as the Deceased. The Prosecution case is that the Deceased died two months later of the injuries inflicted on him by the two Accused Persons.
3. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court is required to make a finding whether the Prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the Accused Persons to be put on their defence or whether the case should be stopped at this point. The test to be utilized is the famous one stated in Bhatt –vs- R [1957] EA 332:whether, as a matter of law – without taking any conclusive view of the credibility and probative value of the evidence presented – the Prosecution has adduced reasonable sufficient evidence of the matter in respect of which it has the burden of proof. Reasonable sufficient evidence is one which a reasonable tribunal could convict.
4. In my view, after considering all evidence tendered in the case and the submissions of the Defence Counsel, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence presented “taken at its highest”, meaning without final determination as to its creditworthiness or weightiness (See R v Galbraith 73 Cr. App. R. 124) – could lead a reasonable court to convict if no explanation is offered by the Defence.
5. Consequently, the Court finds that both Accused Persons have a case to answer and puts them on their defence.The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Delivered at Kiambu this 22nd day of November, 2018.
..........................
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE