https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7958

Republic v Onyango (Criminal Case E033 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7958 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7958 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Siaya Criminal Case E033 of 2024 DK Kemei, J June 9, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Steven Ouma Onyango Accused Ruling 1.The accused herein Steven Ouma Onyango has been charged with an offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on 2nd July 2024 at around 1930 hours at Ragegni Sub Location, East Uyuma Location in Rarieda Sub County within Siaya County murdered Tom Wasike. 2.The accused denied the charge an that the prosecution called eight witnesses in support of its case. 3.The prosecution’s case is that the deceased herein entered the room of one of his neighbours, (PW3) and requested her for help as he had apparently been doused with some corrosive chemical and that she alerted one of the neighbours (PW1) to assist the deceased to hospital for help. PW1 tried to enquire from the deceased as to what had happened and that the deceased claimed that the accused had poured acid on him. PW1 thus rushed him to Midigo Hospital. PW2 who was a brother to the deceased visited him in hospital and learnt from the deceased that his assailant was one Steve. PW4 was also a neighbour of both deceased and accused testified that the deceased stormed into her house while having been sprinkled with some chemical which was corrosive that her husband (PW1) rushed the deceased to hospital. She identified some of the items damaged by the chemical such as a curtain (Exhibit 2). The area assistant chief (PW5) stated that on being alerted of the incident, he rushed to the hospital an saw the deceased and later organized for the arrest of the accused. Doctor Masawa Thadens (PW6) later conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased and noted deep burns on the right anterior abdomen, chest wall, neck, facial area and superficial burns on the hands. He assessed the total burnt area as 16% with third degree burns. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was severe complications due to third degree burns and that the meningitis and pneumonia was due to the third-degree burns. He produced the autopsy as Exhibit 3. Some samples were taken to the Government Chemist for analysis and that Richard Kimutai Langat (PW7) testified that he subjected the items to analysis which gave evidence of presence of salphuric acid causes severe burns to the skin. He produced the report dated 1/8/024 as exhibit 4. No. 65761 Sergeant Japhet Ngetich (PW8) investigated the matter. He added that he established that the deceased had secretly communicated with the accused’s girlfriend. That the accused was first to be charged with attempted murder but upon the death of the deceased, he was charged with the present offence. He produced the deceased’s black jumper which had been corroded by the chemical substance as well as a torn discolored curtain which had come into contact with the chemical as exhibits. 4.At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defence opted to file submissions while the prosecution opted to rely on the evidence on record. 5.Vide submissions dated 23/5/2026 learned Counsel for the Defence submitted that the prosecution’s case is based on conjectures and that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence. Learned Counsel urged the Court to acquit the accused. 6.I have considered the evidence adduced at this stage of the proceedings as well as the submissions presented. I find the issue for determination is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him to be placed on his defence. 7.In all criminal cases, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond any reasonable doubt. See Woolmington vs DPP (1935 AC. 462). 8.At this stage of the proceedings, the prosecution is under duty to establish a prima facie case against the accused so as to warrant him to be placed on his defence. A prima facie case was described in the case of Bhat vs R (1957) EA 332 as 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 tendered by the defence to the contrary. In a nutshell, the evidence so far tendered at this stage of the proceedings should be sufficient to sustain a conviction against the accused were he to elect to remain silent in defence. 9.After analyzing the evidence of some of the prosecution’s witnesses namely, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, I find that the same placed the accused at the scene of crime. That being the position, I find that the accused must now offer an explanation as to how the deceased met his death. 10.In the result, it is my finding that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him to be called upon to make a defence. Consequently, I find the accused herein Steven Ouma Onyango has a case to answer and is now called upon to elect to conduct this defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of;-Steven Ouma Onyango AccusedAnyul for AccusedSoita for ProsecutionMaurine Court Assistant.