[2019] KEHC 7 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimony of ten witnesses, had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. The evidence addressed the essential elements of the offence as required by Section 203 of the Penal Code, including the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Rajabu Kaingu Chengo; Defendant: Sarangi Katana Ndokolani; Defendant: Karani Kea Ndunda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 22 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case After Prosecution Evidence
- Outcome
- prima facie case established; accused to be put on their defence
- Judges
- DB Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Burden of Proof, Mens Rea, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Rajabu Kaingu Chengo
Defendant
Sarangi Katana Ndokolani
Defendant
Karani Kea Ndunda
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case After Prosecution Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced meets the threshold to require the accused to be put on their defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimony of ten witnesses, had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. The evidence addressed the essential elements of the offence as required by Section 203 of the Penal Code, including the death of the deceased, its unlawfulness, malice aforethought, and the identification of the accused. The court applied the standard that, at this stage, it is not necessary for the prosecution to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but rather to have established a case sufficient to require the accused to be put on their defence. The court was satisfied that this...
Court Disposition
prima facie case established; accused to be put on their defence
Orders
- The accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are called upon to enter their defence in accordance with Section 306(2) and Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 OF 2015
REPUBLIC.....................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
RAJABU KAINGU CHENGO.......................................................................1ST ACCUSED
SARANGI KATANA NDOKOLANI............................................................2ND ACCUSED
KARANI KEA NDUNDA..............................................................................3RD ACCUSED
Coram: Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi
Ms Sombo for the State
Mr. Ogeto for the Accused persons
RULING
The three accused persons were arraigned in court charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 of the Penal Code. Each of the accused pleaded not guilty to the allegations of killing Kazungu Karabu Nzao on 3rd October, 2015 at Mkwajuni village within Kilifi County.
In the present case consistent with Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act. Ten witnesses testified to discharge the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt.
The charge as initiated under Section 203 of the Penal Code requires the prosecution to establish the following ingredients:
1. The death of the deceased.
2. That his death is unlawful.
3. That in closing death the accused had malice aforethought
4. Finally, that the accused persons thought direct or circumstantial evidence were positively identified or recognized as the perpetrators of the crime.
The mensrea is required for the offence is provided for in Section 206 of the Penal code. The underlying principle is the intention to cause death or to do grievous harm.
In Sault Ste Marie 1978 SCR 1299 the court stated that:
“Where the offence is criminal, the court must establish a mental element namely, that the accused who committed the prohibited act did so intentionally, or recklessly, with knowledge of the facts constituting the offence or with blindness toward them. More negligence is excluded from the concept of the mental element required for conviction within the context of a criminal prosecution a person who fails to make such inquiries as a reasonable and prudent person would make, or who fails to know facts he should have known is guilt in the eyes of the law.”
I have reviewed the evidence of the ten witnesses and I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the finding of a prima facie case to warrant the accused persons to be called upon to answer the charge in terms of Section 306(2) as read with Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI THIS 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019.
..........................
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Accused persons