[2015] KEHC 2002 (KLR)
The court found that, after considering the evidence of six prosecution witnesses and the circumstances of the case, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. The court noted that it is not required at this stage to analyze the evidence in detail as would be done at the judgment stage,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2002 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Mayeka Moyongu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 73 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused placed on his defence.
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Prosecution Evidence, Failure to Call Witnesses
- 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
Peter Mayeka Moyongu
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 to require him to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether failure to call crucial witnesses by the prosecution undermines the case against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, after considering the evidence of six prosecution witnesses and the circumstances of the case, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. The court noted that it is not required at this stage to analyze the evidence in detail as would be done at the judgment stage, but only to determine if there is sufficient evidence to require the accused to be put on his defence. Despite the absence of some crucial witnesses, the evidence presented was deemed sufficient to meet the threshold for a prima facie case. The accused was therefore placed on his defence and informed of his rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is placed on his defence.
- The accused is informed of his rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to address the court and indicate how he wishes to give his evidence and whether he wishes to call any witnesses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 73 OF 2013
REPUBLIC………………………………………….........................…… PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PETER MAYEKA MOYONGU………………………...............................……. ACCUSED
RULING
Peter Mayeka Moyongu, the accused, is charged with murder contrary to section 203 read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged in the particulars of the offence that on 27th June 2013 at Kware slums Ongata Rongai Township within Kajiado County he murdered Job Maina Samwel.
After calling evidence from six witnesses, the prosecution case came to a conclusion. Following various applications to have the case adjourned because the investigating officer could not come to testify for one reason or another the court declined to grant further adjournment. The prosecution counsel told the court that she was not able to close the case for the prosecution and left the matter with the court to make a decision. This court ordered the closure of the prosecution case.
In her submissions the prosecution counsel told the court that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused to require him to give evidence in his defence. The defence on the other hand told the court that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case and that there is no evidence to show that the accused planned to commit murder. Counsel faulted the prosecution for failing to avail crucial witnesses. He relied on Jamleck Mwaniki Njururi v. Republic [2013] eKLR and James Omondi Were v. Republic [2014] eKLR to emphasize the point that where crucial witnesses for the prosecution are not called to testify, the court is entitled to draw an inference that the evidence of those witnesses would have been adverse to the prosecution case.
I have considered the rival submissions and the evidence so far adduced. The court is not required at this stage to analyze all the evidence in finality as though it was determining the case at the judgement stage. Suffice it to consider the evidence and determine if the evidence so far tendered establishes a prima facie case against the accused. After taking into account all the evidence and the circumstances of this case, it is my finding that the evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused. I will and do hereby place the accused on his defence. I hereby inform him of his rights under section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to address this court and inform him how he wishes to give his evidence and whether he wishes to call any witnesses. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered this 21st July 2015.
S.N. MUTUKU
JUDGE