[2025] KEHC 5092 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Republic vs. Joseph Shitandi & Another and Republic vs. Stephen Chomba Kamau, the court held that the evidence, if uncontroverted, could result in a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 5092 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nelson Bosire Otuke alias Zephania; Defendant: Zablon Nyabuto Otuke; Defendant: John Jonte Otuke
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyamira
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E021 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
- Judges
- WA Okwany
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Nelson Bosire Otuke alias Zephania
Defendant
Zablon Nyabuto Otuke
Defendant
John Jonte Otuke
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 persons to warrant their being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced links the accused persons to the murder of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Republic vs. Joseph Shitandi & Another and Republic vs. Stephen Chomba Kamau, the court held that the evidence, if uncontroverted, could result in a conviction. Therefore, the accused persons must be put on their defence as required by Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that this stage does not require a detailed analysis of the evidence or a determination of guilt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence to call for an answer from the accused.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
Orders
- The accused persons are found to have a case to answer.
- The accused are informed of their right to address the court, give evidence, make unsworn statements, and call witnesses in their defence as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Republic v Otuke alias Zephania & 2 others (Criminal Case E021 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 5092 (KLR) (24 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 5092 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyamira
Criminal Case E021 of 2022
WA Okwany, J
April 24, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Nelson Bosire Otuke alias Zephania
1st Accused
Zablon Nyabuto Otuke
2nd Accused
John Jonte Otuke
3rd Accused
Ruling
1. The accused persons herein are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on 6th October 2022 at Kiomonso Village, Girango Sub-Location in Masaba North Sub-County within Nyamira County jointly murdered Elkana Omae Bosire (deceased).
2. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called a total of 7 witnesses before closing its case.
3. The court is at this stage required to determine if the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons so as to require them to be placed on their defence.
4. A case to answer was defined in Republic vs. Joseph Shitandi & Another (2014) eKLR as follows: -“A case to answer is a case where if the accused keeps quiet, the evidence of the prosecution should be such that a conviction will result.”
5. The procedure for determining whether indeed, the accused has a case to answer was discussed in Republic vs. Stephen Chomba Kamau (2021) eKLR thus: -“In Republic vs. Samuel Karanja Kiria (2009) eKLR Justice J.B Ojwang (as he then was) stated:-‘The question at this stage is not whether or not the accused is guilty as charged but whether there is cogent evidence of his connection with the circumstances in which killing of deceased occurred. That the concept of prima facie case dictates as a matter of law that an opportunity created by this court for the accused to state his own case regarding the killing. The governing law on this point is well settled ... The Court of Appeal is Criminal Appeal No. 77/2006 expressed that too detailed analysis of evidence stage at no case to answer stage is undesirable it the court is going to put accused on his defence as too much details in the trial court’s ruling could then compromise the evidentiary quality of the defence to be mounted.’”
6. In the present case, I find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution suffices for the accused persons to be informed that they have a case to answer. They are therefore informed that they have a right to address the court as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. Accordingly, the accused persons are informed that they have a right to address the court either personally or through their advocate or to give evidence on their own behalf or to make unsworn statements and to call witnesses in their defence. The accused are now requested to elect how they will address the court.
8. It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2024. W. A. OKWANYJUDGE