[2023] KEHC 544 (KLR)
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against each of the accused persons. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to support a conviction for the offence of murder as charged. Therefore, the court ruled that the accused...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 544 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Albert Muriithi Njoka; Defendant: Joseck Muriithi Mugo; Defendant: Edward Murimi Mutua; Defendant: Morris Muchangi Njagi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E028 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their defence.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, 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
Albert Muriithi Njoka
Defendant
Joseck Muriithi Mugo
Defendant
Edward Murimi Mutua
Defendant
Morris Muchangi Njagi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant their being placed on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to convict the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against each of the accused persons. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to support a conviction for the offence of murder as charged. Therefore, the court ruled that the accused persons have a case to answer and should be placed on their defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that detailed reasons are not required at this stage unless the accused are acquitted, in line with established legal principles.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their defence.
Orders
- Each accused person is found to have a case to answer and is placed on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Republic v Njoka & 3 others (Criminal Case E028 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 544 (KLR) (1 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 544 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Embu
Criminal Case E028 of 2021
LM Njuguna, J
February 1, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Albert Muriithi Njoka
1st Accused
Joseck Muriithi Mugo
2nd Accused
Edward Murimi Mutua
3rd Accused
Morris Muchangi Njagi
4th Accused
Ruling
1. The accused persons herein were charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence being that on August 24, 2021 at Karundori village, Kiangungi sub-location, within Embu county jointly murdered John Mugendi Njoka. Upon arraignment in court, they pleaded not guilty and a plea of not guilty was entered for each of them.
2. The case proceeded for trial and wherein the prosecution called six (6) witnesses in support of its case; after which the prosecution closed its case.
3. Under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75 Laws of Kenya), this court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling or a decision on whether an accused person has a case to answer or not. Under section 306(1), when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused persons committed the offence should, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
4. Under section 306(2) on the other hand, when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is evidence that the accused person committed the offence, the court should proceed to place the accused person on his defence and whereby the accused is supposed to present evidence in his defence.
5. As such, at this stage, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination as to whether the same presents a prima facie case that would warrant this court to call upon the accused persons to give their defence. Under section 211 of theCriminal Procedure Code, a prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person. [See Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332 at 334 and 335].
6. However, it is trite that, where the court is not acquitting the accused person at the close of prosecutions’ case, there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer. Reasons should only be given where the submissions of a no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted. [See Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103].
7. I have considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution in this matter as required of this court and from the entirety of the said evidence, it is my view that the prosecution has made up a prima facie case against the accused persons. Each of them has a case to answer and they are placed on their defence.
8. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023. L. NJUGUNAJUDGE……………………………………….…..for the Accused…………………………………………….for the State