https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11633

Republic v Ong'oa (Criminal Case E013 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11633 (KLR) (Crim) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11633 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Criminal Criminal Case E013 of 2024 AM Muteti, J May 22, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and John Matara Ong'oa Accused Ruling 1.The accused person was charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code-Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of offence are that JOHN MATARA ONG'OA on the night of 3rd January 2024 at Papino Apartments, South B in Makadara Sub County within Nairobi County murdered STARLET WAHU MWANGI. 2.The prosecution called a total of 18 witnesses in support of their case. Throughout the evidence of the prosecution, the accused person was placed at the scene of crime within Papino Apartments where the incident leading to the death of the deceased occurred. 3.The prosecution was able to establish that the accused and the deceased occupied the room where the body of the deceased was discovered shortly after the accused had left the apartment. 4.The prosecution witnesses also established that the deceased died out of multiple injuries sustained inside the room and that the room had blood strewn all over. 5.The court also heard evidence that the death of the deceased was as a direct result of an assault and that when the accused person walked out of the building, he had his trouser blood stained and the white towel that he wrapped around his neck was blood stained as well. 6.The court at this stage is not required to engage an exhaustive analysis and examination of the evidence but should be satisfied that on a prima facie basis the accused person has a case to answer. 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.” 7.The court in the instant case has received credible evidence that a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law could convict if no explanation is offered by the defense. The court remains fully aware that the burden of proof wholly rests on the shoulders of the prosecution throughout the case and is by no means shifting the burden of proof to the accused. 8.The court in Republic v Abdi Ibrahim [2013] EKLR, defined a prima facie case as follows: “Prima facie” is a Latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8thEdition as “Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. “Prima facie case” is defined by the same dictionary as “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption”. 9.The prosecution in a murder case would be required to establish the elements of actus reus and mens rea linking the accused person to the offense either directly or indirectly. 10.The court has heard both direct and circumstantial evidence which supports a finding that a prima facie case was made out against the accused person requiring him to be placed on his defense. 11.As result, this court finds that the accused person has a case to answer in accordance with Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he is accordingly placed on his defense. 12.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026.A. M. MUTETIJUDGEIn the presence of:Habiba: Court AssistantNjoroge for the stateAyora/Mochere for the AccusedKinuthia for victims