https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11832

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT NAIROBI** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E034 OF 2023** **REPUBLIC-----------------------------------------------------------PROSECTUION** **VERSUS** **JOSEPH ODHIAMBO OKELLO------------------------------------- ACCUSED** **RULING** 1. The accused person was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. 2. The particulars of offence are that JOSEPH ODHIAMBO OKELLO on the night of 7th May, 2023 at Keroka Area, in Kasarani Subcounty within Nairobi County murdered GLADYS NDULU. 3. The prosecution closed its case after calling a total of 9 prosecution witnesses. The evidence tendered by the prosecution was to the effect that the deceased was co-habiting with the accused person at the time she met her death. 4. According to eye witness account the accused person stabbed the deceased in the abdomen as they walked from the accused person’s house after a disagreement between the deceased and the accused which prompted the deceased and her children to leave the house of the accused. 5. Further evidence showed that the deceased as a result of the injuries she sustained thus the accused person was directly connected to the death of the deceased. 6. At this stage all that the prosecution needs to prove is that on a prima facie basis the accused person committed the offence and that a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind on the evidence and the law in the absence of any other explanation would most likely return a finding of guilty against the accused person. 7. The court is required to evaluate the evidence bearing in mind that the burden of proof throughout the trial remains on the shoulders of the prosecution and that the accused person need not say anything. 8. The test of a prima facie case was aptly captured by the court in **Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335**, the court stated as follows: ***“Remembering 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.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence…It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean 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.”*** 9. This court has evaluated the evidence tendered by the prosecution as well as considered the submissions made by counsel for the defense. 10. There is no doubt that the deceased person was of good health before the unfortunate incident of stabbing and that the death of the deceased directly resulted from the injuries sustained. The identity of the offender was also adequately proved and in this court’s view the ingredients of the offence of murder have been established on a prima facie basis and as such the court finds that there is reasonable cause to place the accused person on his defense in line with Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 11. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED VIRTUALLY** at **NAIROBI** this **30th** day of **JULY, 2026.** 1. **M. MUTETI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Court Assistant: Habiba Habiba: Court Assistant Mr Mogere for state Lwanga for Accused