[2022] KEHC 2115 (KLR)
The court, after considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution, found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused, Peter Muriuki Mugo, for the offence of murder. The evidence presented by the six prosecution witnesses, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2115 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Muriuki Mugo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 1 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence; case to proceed to defence hearing
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Criminal Procedure, Burden of Proof
- 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 Muriuki Mugo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to convict the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution, found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused, Peter Muriuki Mugo, for the offence of murder. The evidence presented by the six prosecution witnesses, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Therefore, the court ruled that the accused has a case to answer and must be put on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that at this stage, detailed reasons are not required unless the accused is to be acquitted, as per established legal principles.
Court Disposition
accused put on his defence; case to proceed to defence hearing
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1 OF 2020
REPUBLIC.............................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PETER MURIUKI MUGO...........................................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused person herein was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence being that on 20. 01. 2020 at Karurina Trading Centre of Itabua Sub Location in Mbeti North Location within Embu County murdered Erick Gitonga. Upon arraignment in court, he pleaded not guilty and a plea of not guilty was entered.
2. The case proceeded for trial and wherein the prosecution called Six (6) witnesses in support of its case; after which it closed its case.
3. Under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya, this court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling or a decision on whether an accused person has a case to answer or not. Under section 306(1), when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused person committed the offence should, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
4. Under section 306(2) on the other hand, when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is evidence that the accused person committed the offence, the court should proceed to put the accused to his defence and whereby the accused is supposed to present evidence in his defence.
5. As such, at this stage, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination as to whether the same presents a prima facie case that would warrant this court to call upon the accused person to give his defence. Under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person. [See Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335].However, it is trite that, where the court is not acquitting the accused person at the close of prosecutions’ case, there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer. Reasons should only be given where the submissions of a no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted. (See Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103).
6. I have considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution in this matter as required of this court and from the entirety of the evidence, it is my view that the prosecution has made up a prima facie case against the accused person. He therefore has a case to answer and is put on his defence.
7. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
........................................for the Accused
..............................................for the State