[2017] KEHC 3500 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and evidence of the accused being seen with the murder weapon, such that if the evidence were taken at its highest and unchallenged, a reasonable tribunal could convict. The court held that it is not proper at this...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3500 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Gitahi Ndumia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 50 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused found to have a case to answer; matter set for defence hearing
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- No Case to Answer, Murder, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- Source Language
- english
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
Peter Gitahi Ndumia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring the accused to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is so unreliable or contradictory that no reasonable tribunal could convict on it.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and evidence of the accused being seen with the murder weapon, such that if the evidence were taken at its highest and unchallenged, a reasonable tribunal could convict. The court held that it is not proper at this stage to assess the credibility or weight of the evidence, and that only where the evidence is so hopelessly contradictory or unreliable should a no case to answer ruling be made. Since the prosecution's evidence did not meet that threshold, the accused was found to have a case to answer and was put on his defence.
Court Disposition
accused found to have a case to answer; matter set for defence hearing
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer.
- The case is set down for defence hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 50 OF 2016
REPUBLIC..................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PETER GITAHI NDUMIA.....................................ACCUSED
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. In a criminal trial, at the conclusion of the Prosecution case, the Court considers submissions by the Prosecution and Defence whether the evidence presented thus far warrants putting the Accused Person on his defence. The task of the Court at this stage in the proceedings is to decide if the Prosecution has made out a sufficient case for the Accused Persons to be placed on his defence.
2. The test to be utilised by the Court in making that determination was famously stated in the Bhatt –vs- R [1957] EA 332. In plain terms, the Court is expected to determine if there is enough reliable evidence to warrant the Court to hear from the Accused Persons or if the case should be stopped at this point.
3. The test was stated in the R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR1039thus:
(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case. (2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence. (a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a [Court] properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case. (b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness’s reliability ….and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a [Court] could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to [proceed for Defence hearing]…. There will of course, as always in this branch of the law, be borderline cases. They can safely be left to the dis
4. In the instant case, the Prosecution presented nine witnesses who sought to demonstrate that it was the Accused Person who unlawfully killed John Githira Mwangi (“Deceased”) on 22/06/2016 at Zimmerman Estate, Kasarani Sub County within Nairobi County contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. According to the evidence presented, at least two of the witnesses saw the confrontation between the Accused Person and the Deceased and one – PW1 – says he saw the Accused Person with the murder weapon.
5. The Defence Counsel put in very elaborate submissions contesting the authenticity and credibility of the narratives by the Prosecution witnesses. Suffice it to say that at this point in the trial, it is improper for me to take a view of the “weightiness”, credibility or reliability of the evidence presented by the Prosecution.
6. The Court can only rule that the Accused Person has no case to answer where it forms the view that the evidence presented is so hopelessly contradictory or so woefully unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could convict based on it. With respect, that is not the position here. Here there is enough evidence presented by the Prosecution which, “taken at its highest”, meaning without final determination as to its creditworthiness or weightiness (See R v Galbraith 73 Cr. App. R. 124) – a reasonable court could convict if no explanation is offered by the Defence. Consequently, in the circumstances, the Court finds that the Accused Person has a case to answer.
7. Consequently, the case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Dated and delivered at Kiambu this 18thDay of September, 2017.
......................
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE