[2017] KEHC 3897 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including testimony from seven witnesses and the post mortem report indicating death by blunt force trauma, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Bhat v Republic, the court held that a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3897 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Patrick Kyalo Munywa; Defendant: Lawrence Mulwa Munywa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 62 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to be placed on their defence.
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, 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
Patrick Kyalo Munywa
Defendant
Lawrence Mulwa Munywa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to require them to be put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the accused elect to remain silent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including testimony from seven witnesses and the post mortem report indicating death by blunt force trauma, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Bhat v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if the accused elected to remain silent. Consequently, the accused were found to have a case to answer and were placed on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to be placed on their defence.
Orders
- Both accused persons are found to have a case to answer.
- Both accused persons are ordered to be placed on their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 62 OF 2013
REPUBLIC ................................................................................................ PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PATRICK KYALO MUNYWA...................................................................1ST ACCUSED
LAWRENCE MULWA MUNYWA .......................................................... 2ND ACCUSED
RULING OF THE COURT
1. Both accused persons herein PATRICK KYALO MUNYWA and LAWRENCE MULWA MUNYWA are charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (CAP 63) Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence are that on the 28th November, 2013 at Katheka–Kai village in Machakos District within Machakos County, jointly with others not before the Court murdered JOEL MUTUNGA MUINDU.
2. The Prosecution’s case is that on the material date the deceased was picked up by the fellow villagers who included the accused herein on allegation that he had stolen a cow belonging to the family of the accused persons. The deceased was beaten for the better part of the night before being handed over to Machakos Police Station from where he was rushed to Kenyatta National Hospital but was pronounced dead at the hospital’s casualty Section. A post mortem was later conducted on the body and the Pathologist formed the opinion that the cause of death was head injury due to blunt force trauma. The accused persons herein were subsequently arrested.
3. The Prosecution called seven (7) witnesses in support of its case. Both learned counsels for Prosecution and defence opted not to make submissions at the close of the Prosecution’s case.
4. At this stage of the proceedings the Prosecution is under a duty to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons so as to require them to make their defence. According to the celebrated case of BHAT =VS= REPUBLIC [1957] EA 332 a prima facie case is one in which a reasonable tribunal directing its mind to the law and evidence is adduced by the defence to the contrary. Therefore the evidence adduced on the part of the Prosecution must be sufficient to sustain a conviction against the accused persons if they are to elect to remain silent in defence.
5. Looking at the evidence of the 7 Prosecution witnesses, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established to require the accused to be placed on their defence and be called to conduct their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence I find both accused persons have a case to answer.
Dated, signed and delivered at MACHAKOS this 27thday of JULY, 2017.
D. K. KEMEI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ayuma for Ngolya for accused
Machogu for state
C/A: Kituva