[2022] KEHC 321 (KLR)
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the submissions by the accused, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against all three accused persons. The evidence presented, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the accused...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 321 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Reonald Nyairo; Defendant: David Njuguna Mbugua; Defendant: Roselyn Karambu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 5 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- All three accused found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure, Case to Answer, 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
Reonald Nyairo
Defendant
David Njuguna Mbugua
Defendant
Roselyn Karambu
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 sufficient to require them to be put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would warrant a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the submissions by the accused, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against all three accused persons. The evidence presented, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the accused are required to be put on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence or determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but only to assess whether there is sufficient evidence to call upon the accused to make their election as to their defence.
Court Disposition
All three accused found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
Orders
- All three accused are found to have a case to answer.
- The accused are informed of their rights under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, or call witnesses in their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Republic v Nyairo & 2 others (Criminal Case 5 of 2016) [2022] KEHC 321 (KLR) (5 May 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 321 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kiambu
Criminal Case 5 of 2016
MM Kasango, J
May 5, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Reonald Nyairo
1st Accused
David Njuguna Mbugua
2nd Accused
Roselyn Karambu
3rd Accused
Ruling
1. The three accused are facing the charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. They all pleaded not guilty.
2. The prosecution closed its case after calling 9 witnesses. This is therefore a Ruling on whether the accused have a case to answer. In considering this Ruling, I rely on the holding in the case Ronald Nyaga Kiura v Republic [2018] eKLR where the court stated:-“It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that a prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal 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. This is well illustrated in the cited Court of Appeal case of Ramanlal Bhat v Republic [1957] EA 332. At that stage of the proceedings the trial court does not concern itself to the standard of proof required to convict which is normally beyond reasonable doubt. The weight of the evidence however must be such that it is sufficient for the trial court to place the accused to his defence.”
3. I have considered the prosecution’s evidence and the submission filed on behalf of the accused. At this stage, the court is not required to make a detailed analysis of the evidence.
4. It is sufficient to state that in my consideration of prosecution’s evidence, I find that all the three accused have a case to answer. All the three accused therefore are informed that they have a right to address the court as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are accordingly informed that they have a right to address the court either personally or by their advocate or to give evidence on their own behalf or to make unsworn statement and to call witnesses in their defence.
5. The accused are now called upon to make their election.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 5THDAY OF MAY, 2022. MARY KASANGOJUDGECoram:Court Assistant : Mourice1st Accused : Ronald Nyairo : PresentFor 1st accused : - Mr. Njuguna HB Ms. Omangala2nd Accused : David Njuguna Mbugua: PresentFor 2nd Accused : Mr. Njuguna Kiarie3rd Accused : Roselyn Karambu: PresentFor 3rd Accused: Mr. Njuguna KiarieFor DPP :- Mr. KasyokaCOURTRULING delivered virtually.MARY KASANGOJUDGE