[2017] KEHC 112 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against all five accused persons for the charge of murder. The late filing of the psychiatric report was addressed by the court's direction to have the assessment done before the close of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 112 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Musau Maweu; Defendant: Jonathan Nzivo; Defendant: John Nabea; Defendant: Bernard Engolet; Defendant: Sammy Mwova
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 3 of 2014
- 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 called upon to make their defence.
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Psychiatric Assessment, Case to Answer
- 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 Musau Maweu
Defendant
Jonathan Nzivo
Defendant
John Nabea
Defendant
Bernard Engolet
Defendant
Sammy Mwova
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 warrant their being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the absence or late filing of psychiatric reports prejudiced the accused persons' rights.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against all five accused persons for the charge of murder. The late filing of the psychiatric report was addressed by the court's direction to have the assessment done before the close of the prosecution's case, and the report was duly produced in evidence. The court held that the accused persons were not prejudiced by the timing of the psychiatric assessment. Consequently, the accused persons were found to have a case to answer and were called upon to make their defence. The court declined to provide detailed reasons for this finding, in line with established...
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to make their defence.
Orders
- All five accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are called upon to make their defence.
- The provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be explained to the accused persons by their counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3 OF 2014
REPUBLIC...................................................................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
PETER MUSAU MAWEU............................................1ST ACCUSED
JONATHAN NZIVO.....................................................2ND ACCUSED
JOHN NABEA...............................................................3RD ACCUSED
BERNARD ENGOLET.................................................4TH ACCUSED
SAMMY MWOVA.........................................................5TH ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. At the close of the prosecution's case the 1st and 2nd accused by way of written submissions filed by their counsel Mr. Momanyi argued that there was no case to answer. The counsel for the 3rd 4th and 5th accused Mr. Mugambi did not file any submissions despite being granted time to do so.
2. The charge facing the accused is one of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
3. In their submissions, the 1st and 2nd accused argued that the prosecution had not made up a prima facie case for the accused to be called upon to make their defences.
4. The submissions summarize the evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses arguing that none of the witnesses pointed an accusing finger to the accused persons as having committed the offence. Further that it is not known whether the deceased was killed or his body was just dumped on the roadside where it was recovered.
5. Mr. Momanyi also submitted that the accused persons had not been subjected to psychiatrist examination which omission subjected them to a lot of injustice.
6. I wish to comment on this issue raised by the counsel on psychiatric examination of the accused persons. The record shows that the prosecution realized towards the close of their case that the investigation file did not have the psychiatrist report. The court, in the interests of justice directed that the examination be done at Embu Level 5 Hospital and the report file.
7. Dr. Joseph Thuo did the mental assessment and produced his report as the last prosecution witness. This report suffices and is valid for purposes of this case unless a contrary report by the defence is produced.
8. I have perused the evidence of the 13 prosecution witnesses in this case. I have also considered the submissions by the 1st and 2nd accused persons on no case to answer.
9. I wish to state that where the court rules that there is a case to answer, it is not bound to give reasons for its decision. The reason for this trend is that such detailed reasoning is likely to pre-empt the defence of the accused person(s).
10. It is my considered opinion that the evidence on record both direct and circumstantial is sufficient to support the charge against the five accused persons.
11. I find that the five (5) accused persons have a case to answer and are hereby called upon to make their defence.
12. The accused persons are represented and will be explained the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code by their Counsels.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms. Manyal for the State
Mr. Momanyi for 1st and 2nd accused
Mr. Mugambi for the 3rd, 4th and 5th accused