https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8713

Republic v Nyoro (Criminal Case 28 of 2017) [2026] KEHC 8713 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8713 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Criminal Case 28 of 2017 A Mshila, J June 19, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Monica Wanjiru Nyoro Accused Ruling 1.The accused was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code; she was accused of having murdered John Muturi Maina on the night of 4th day of January, 2017 at Thindigua Area, Kiambu Sub-County within Kiambu County. 2.The accused entered a plea of Not Guilty and at the hearing she was represented by Learned Counsel Mr. Marube whereas Mr. Gacharia was the Prosecuting Counsel for the State. 3.A total of six (6) prosecution witnesses were called in support of the prosecution’s case and at the close of its case both counsel were invited to make submissions on whether the prosecution had made out a case that would necessitate the accused to be called upon to defend herself. 4.Defence counsel filed written submissions whereas the prosecuting counsel stated that the prosecution would be relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses; Prosecuting Counsel submitted that the evidence was enough to have the accused placed on her defence. Accused’s Case 5.Counsel submitted that the only issue to be determined is whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused; His contention was that there was no direct evidence adduced against the accused to link or connect her to the commission of the offence; none of the prosecution witnesses testified that they witnessed the incident; There were also no proper investigations carried out and the police merely relied on the reports that were made by the villagers. 6.The witnesses stated that both the accused and the deceased had undisclosed family differences but no one witnessed the fight between the two and there was no evidence on the recovery of the knife which was said to have been the murder weapon. 7.It was counsels’ humble submission that there was no sufficient evidence adduced to warrant the accused to be placed on her defence and prayed that she be acquitted forthwith. Analysis 8.The question is whether the prosecution has made out a ‘prima facie case’ for the accused to answer; the definition of a ‘prima facie case’ is well captured in the renowned Court of Appeal case of Bhatt vs Republic (1957) EA 332 where the court held as follows;‘A prima facie case must mean one where a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.’ 9.At the close of the prosecution’s case, if this court is satisfied that there is‘a prima facie case’ made out by the prosecution it is not required to give any reasons for reaching such a decision; Any such reasons would only be requisite if the court were to uphold the submissions on ‘no case to answer’. 10.This court has thus evaluated the evidence on record and has directed its mind to the applicable law on the offence; upon applying the same principles as set out in the cited authority Bhatt (supra) this court is satisfied that ‘the evidence could lead to a conviction if no explanation is offered by the defence.’ and for this reason finds that the prosecution has established a ‘prima facie’ case against the accused that warrants her being placed on her defence to answer to the charges. 11.For those reasons this court finds that the accused has a case to answer; her rights and options will be put to her for election before she presents her defence.Orders Accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT VOI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.A. MSHILAJUDGEIn the presence of;Sanja/Trizah – Court AssistantsGacheria - For the ProsecutionFor the Accused – Mr. Marube – AbsentAccused from Langata Womens Prison – Present