[2025] KEHC 1837 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through six witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence placed the accused at the scene of the crime, and circumstances such as his disappearance and the recovery of a blood-stained jacket from his room provided a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 1837 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Kevin Oduor
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E039 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- case to answer found; accused put on defence
- Judges
- DK Kemei
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, 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
Kevin Oduor
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced links the accused to the offence of murder as charged.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through six witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence placed the accused at the scene of the crime, and circumstances such as his disappearance and the recovery of a blood-stained jacket from his room provided a basis for requiring him to offer an explanation. Applying the standard set out in Bhatt v R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if the defence offered none. Consequently, the accused was found to have a case to answer and was called upon to elect how to conduct his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure...
Court Disposition
case to answer found; accused put on defence
Orders
- The accused, Kevin Oduor, is found to have a case to answer.
- The accused is called upon to elect to conduct his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Oduor (Criminal Case E039 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 1837 (KLR) (25 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 1837 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Criminal Case E039 of 2023
DK Kemei, J
February 25, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Kevin Oduor
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused herein Kevin Oduor has been has been charged with an offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on the 2nd day of November, 2023 at Muhoho village, Yala Township Location within Gen Sub Location within Siaya County murdered Julia Onyiera Odera.
2. The prosecution called six witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution’s case is that the deceased who was an octogenarian had been a land lady on a plot within Muhoho area of Yala township, disappeared on 27/10/2023. Prior to her disappearance, she had had some disagreements with her tenants over the need for a new toilet as the ones in use were already filled. The accused herein was one of the tenants and who had disagreed with her as well. The deceased was later found having been dumped inside a disused pit within the compound and she appeared to have been seriously injured. She was rushed to Yala Sub-County hospital but passed on. Investigations were conducted. The accused herein apparently disappeared from the plot around the time the deceased went missing. The rest of the tenants started pointing fingers at him and that members of public went in search of him. He was finally nabbed by members of public who administered mob justice before police came to his rescue. The accused’s room was broken into and a blood-stained jacket was recovered and taken for DNA analysis. The accused was later charged with this offence.
3. At this stage of the proceedings, the prosecution is under a duty to establish a prima facie case against the accused so as to require him to be called upon to make a defence. A prima facie case is one in which a reasonable tribunal directing its mind to the law and evidence placed before it could convict an accused if no evidence is offered by the defence to the contrary. See Bhatt VS. R [1957] EA 332.
4. An analysis of the evidence so far tendered by the six prosecution witnesses leads me to come to the conclusion that the accused has been placed at the scene of crime and must now offer an explanation as to how the deceased met her death. I find a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution to require the accused to be called upon to make a defence.
5. In the result, it is my finding that the accused herein Kevin Oduor has a case to answer and is now called upon to elect to conduct his defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of:Kevin Oduor………AccusedOdhiambo…………for AccusedSoita……………for ProsecutionOgendo………………Court Assistant