[2017] KEHC 5882 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, including the accused's surrender with the alleged murder weapon and his actions leading police to the scene, as well as circumstantial evidence from witnesses. Although the defence challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5882 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nathan Runji Nyaga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 32 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Circumstantial Evidence, Confession Evidence
- 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
Nathan Runji Nyaga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on No 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 adduced, including circumstantial evidence and alleged confession, is sufficient at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, including the accused's surrender with the alleged murder weapon and his actions leading police to the scene, as well as circumstantial evidence from witnesses. Although the defence challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that the threshold at this stage is whether a prima facie case has been established, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court was satisfied that the evidence presented by the prosecution met this threshold, and therefore the accused was required to be put on his defence.
Court Disposition
accused put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is hereby put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
CHUKA HCCR 32 OF 2015
FORMERLY MERU HCCRA NO. 44 OF 2014
REPUBLIC…………………………..………………….PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
NATHAN RUNJI NYAGA………………………….…………ACCUSED
RULING
1. Nathan Runji Nyaga the accused herein is charged with the murder of Naomi Wamugo (deceased) on 16th June, 2014 at Ngunga village, Kiaritha within Tharaka Nithi County contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The accused person denied the charge and the prosecution called a total of eight witnesses to prove their case against the accused person.
2. At the close of prosecution case, the defence counsel in her submissions of no case to answer poked holes in the prosecution case contending that no prima facie case had been established to warrant the accused being placed on his defence. M/S Kaaria learned counsel for defence urged me to disregard the prosecution’s witnesses account that the accused had confessed to the crime submitting that no admissible statement on confessions was tendered in evidence. She further contended that there was no eye witness to the murder incident and in view of the fact that evidence of PW3 Josiah Njagi Gichohi was basically hearsay. In her view, there was no circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The defence faulted the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6 contending that there was no corroboration in their evidence that suggested that the deceased was killed due to a land dispute between the accused and the deceased.
3. The prosecution on the other hand has maintained that the accused has a case to answer as the evidence they have tendered connects him with the crime. Mr Machirah learned counsel for the state submitted that the accused himself surrendered to the police with the murder weapon and volunteered to lead the police to the scene of murder. He contended that the circumstantial evidence tendered by witnesses summoned connected the accused and that a prima facie case has been established.
4. I have considered the evidence tendered and the submissions of both counsels in this case. I do not find it necessary at this stage not go much into the evidence tendered because all the law requires at the state is the evaluation of the evidence adduced and determine if the same establishes a prim a facie case against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence. The threshold is not at this stage high as beyond reasonable doubt. Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code simply requires the prosecution to place or present evidence which presents a case against the accused sufficient enough to require him to make a defence. The standard is however high enough such that if the accused person was to exercise his right to remain silent and adduce no evidence on defence, the evidence adduced should be sufficient enough to found a conviction. Applying the standard in this case and again deliberately not going into the details of the evidence of all the witnesses summoned by the prosecution, I am satisfied that a case has been made out against the accused person to answer or be placed on his defence. He has a case to answer.
Dated and delivered this 18th day of May, 2017
R. K. LIMO,
JUDGE.