[2025] KEHC 9998 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9998 (KLR)

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. The evidence presented was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly regarding the alleged dying declaration and the identification of the accused as the assailant. Key witnesses did not corroborate the claim that the deceased named the accused, and crucial physical evidence such as the alleged murder weapons was not produced or forensically linked to the accused. The prosecution did not call all material witnesses, and the evidence adduced did not sufficiently connect the accused to the unlawful act or establish malice aforethought. To require the...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9998 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Edwin Murimi Njeru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 July 2025
Case Number
Criminal Case 26 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
acquittal
Judges
EM Muriithi
Legal Topics
Murder, Prima Facie Case, Dying Declaration, Burden of Proof, Malice Aforethought
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Murder Prima Facie Case Dying Declaration Burden of Proof Malice Aforethought

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Edwin Murimi Njeru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused being put on his defence for the offence of murder.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence connects the accused to the unlawful act causing the death of the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence of malice aforethought on the part of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. The evidence presented was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly regarding the alleged dying declaration and the identification of the accused as the assailant. Key witnesses did not corroborate the claim that the deceased named the accused, and crucial physical evidence such as the alleged murder weapons was not produced or forensically linked to the accused. The prosecution did not call all material witnesses, and the evidence adduced did not sufficiently connect the accused to the unlawful act or establish malice aforethought. To require the...

Court Disposition

acquittal

Orders

  • The accused is found not guilty of murder contrary to section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code.
  • The accused shall be released from custody unless otherwise lawfully held.