[2024] KEHC 699 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 699 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Patrick Naweet
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E002 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, 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
Patrick Naweet
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant being put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, could lead to a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation is offered by the defence. Consequently, the accused is required to be put on his defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court refrained from giving detailed reasons for this finding to avoid prejudicing the accused's right to a fair trial, as established in relevant case law and judicial...
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused shall be put on his defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The rights of the accused under section 306(2) shall be explained to him.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Republic v Naweet (Criminal Case E002 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 699 (KLR) (31 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 699 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case E002 of 2022
EM Muriithi, J
January 31, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Patrick Naweet
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that he “on the 3rd day of January 2022 at Kambi Garba area in Isiolo Township Isiolo North sub-County within Isiolo County murdered Elizabeth Ibrahim Ekaru alias Kibiruni.”
2. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to trial, the prosecution calling 11 witnesses to prove the charge.
3. The Prosecution filed Written Submissions dated 8/10/2023 urging that it had by its witnesses established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on is defence. The defence did not file any submissons.
4. The court has considered as required under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code whether there is the evidence that the accused person committed the offence. At this stage, the court considers the prosecution evidence to establish whether a prima facie case exists, which as held in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R (1957) EA 332, 335 is “one on which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
5. Where the court has considered that there is not established a prima facie case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, see Murimi v. R (1967) EA 542 and Wachira v. R (1975) EA 262, and the Court is required to give full reasons for the decision.
6. Where the court finds that a prima facie case has been established as held in Kibera Karimi v. R (1979) KLR 36 (Trevelyan & Todd JJ) the court is not required to give reasons for the finding so as not to prejudice the fair trial of the case by giving the impression that the court has already made up its mind without hearing the defence. See also Festo Wandera Mukando v. R (1976 – 80) KLR 1626 and Antony Njue Njeru v R, Nairobi C.A. Cr. Appeal No. 77 of 2006 and the Kenya Judiciary Criminal Procedure Benchbook, 2018 at 99-100.
7. The court considers that there is the evidence that the accused person committed the offence, having regard to the elements of the offence of murder.
Orders 8. Consequently, the accused shall be put on his defence in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and his rights thereunder shall be explained.Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024. EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAppearancesMr. Masila Prosecution Counsel for the DPP.Mr. Sandi for the Accused.Ms. Kombo and Mr. Makori watching brief for the victim’s family.