[2022] KEHC 2409 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against all accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2409 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nkonye Makembo Mwenja; Defendant: Edward Nyaga Muriithi; Defendant: Haron Kimathi Mubiri alias Kilonzo Nkonye; Defendant: Patrick Muthui Kaibiru; Defendant: Joseph Muriungi Kamwara; Defendant: Jovanah Ncugu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 4 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on their defence.
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Nkonye Makembo Mwenja
Defendant
Edward Nyaga Muriithi
Defendant
Haron Kimathi Mubiri alias Kilonzo Nkonye
Defendant
Patrick Muthui Kaibiru
Defendant
Joseph Muriungi Kamwara
Defendant
Jovanah Ncugu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant them being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution meets the threshold required at the close of the prosecution case in a murder trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against all accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, 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. Therefore, the accused persons are required to be put on their defence as charged. The court refrained from providing detailed reasons at this stage to avoid prejudicing the accused, in line with established legal practice and statutory requirements.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on their defence.
Orders
- The accused have a case to answer.
- Under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused are informed of their right to address the court personally or through their advocate, to give evidence on their own behalf, to make unsworn statements, and to call witnesses if any.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT CHUKA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4 OF 2018
REPUBLIC......................................................................PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS-
NKONYE MAKEMBO MWENJA.................................1ST ACCUSED
EDWARD NYAGA MURIITHI......................................2ND ACCUSED
HARON KIMATHI MUBIRI ALIAS
KILONZO NKONYE.......................................................3RD ACCUSED
PATRICK MUTHUI KAIBIRU.......................................4TH ACCUSED
JOSEPH MURIUNGI KAMWARA.................................5TH ACCUSED
JOVANAH NCUGU............................................................6TH ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. The accused persons herein are charged with the of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code(Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya).
2. The particulars of the offence are that on 9th October 2017 at Kamatindi village, Mauthini sub-location of Kanjoro location, Tharaka North sub-county within Tharaka-Nithi county, the accused persons murdered on Nyaga Makembo.
3. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offence and matter proceeded to trial. The prosecution called a total of nine (9) witnesses in support of the charges against the accused persons before closing its case on 23rd November 2021.
4. This ruling thus seeks to determine whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused persons that would warrant this court to call upon the said accused persons to give their defence. In other words, the issue for determination at this stage is whether the accused have a case to answer.
5. The law is well settled by several authorities as to what constitutes a prima facie case. The leading authority is the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt -v- Republic [1957] E.A. 332 where the court defined a prima facie case as one which a reasonable tribunal properly addressing its mind to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.
6. At his stage the court is called upon to evaluate the testimonies of each of the eight (8) prosecution witnesses who gave evidence in support of the charge of murder that the accused person is facing. Having considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution, it is my finding that the evidence presented by the prosecution before this court meets the threshold in the case of Bhatt -v- R (supra). In the case it was stated:
“Remember that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if at the close of the prosecution the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction...... “ It is not easy to define what is meant by a prima facie case,” but at least it must be 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.”
This has been the leading authority and can be stated to be good law on the subject of prima facie case. The establishment of a prima faciecase is taken to mean that there is legally required rebuttable presumption. This does not however mean that the accused is called upon to prove his innocence is supposed to offer an explanation if he wishes to do so.
7. At this stage, no reasons need to be given for this finding as this court is yet to hear the side of the story of the accused person and giving reasons would amount to determining the case without giving them an opportunity to be heard (See: Republic -v- Samuel Karanja Kiria [2009] eKLR).
8. It is sufficient at this juncture to inform the accused persons whether they have a case to answer and give them a chance to be heard. Based on the evidence tendered by the prosecution up to the close of their case, it is my view that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the accused persons to be put on their defence as charged.
9. In conclusion, I order as follows:
1) The accused have a case to answer
2) Under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75 Laws of Kenya) the accused are informed of their right to address the court either personally or through their advocate, to give evidence on his own behalf, to make unsworn statement and call witnesses if any.
Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 27th day of January 2022.
L.W GITARI
JUDGE