[2019] KEHC 5689 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony of the accused being present at the scene with a weapon and the medical evidence confirming the cause of death, established all the ingredients of the offence of murder on a prima facie basis. The court held that the evidence, if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5689 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Samuel Maundu Ndolo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 174 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused put on defence
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Elements of Offence, 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
Samuel Maundu Ndolo
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 for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced warrants putting the accused on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony of the accused being present at the scene with a weapon and the medical evidence confirming the cause of death, established all the ingredients of the offence of murder on a prima facie basis. The court held that the evidence, if unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the accused has a case to answer and is required to enter his defence.
Court Disposition
accused put on defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is hereby put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 174 OF 2017
REPUBLIC..............................PROSECUTION
-VERSUS-
SAMUEL MAUNDU NDOLO.......ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused person was charged with offence of Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63), Laws of Kenya.
2. Particulars being that on 18/04/2013 at Nditikwa Village, Kalongo Sub-location, Kiboko Location in Kilungu District within Makueni County murdered David Musyoki Ndolo.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty and matter went into trial.
4. The prosecution called 3 witnesses.
5. PW3 Alice Kamengele Ndolo, mother of the accused and the deceased testified how on 18/07/2013 at 5. 30 a.m. heard the noise of iron sheet and went to check what was happening. She found accused holding knife and the accused lying down with a cut. The accused ran away.
6. As the deceased was bleeding profusely, she ran to get clothing to cover him to stop bleeding.
7. She saw cuts at the knees, leg and elbow. She asked accused why he did cut his brother but he ran away. Her other son Mark joined her in the scene and she screamed for help.
8. Deceased was taken to hospital but eventually passed on due to the injuries sustained.
9. PW1 investigating officer investigated the case and eventually charged accused with offence of murder.
10. PW2 a doctor Edwin Walong a pathologist produced postmortem and opined that deceased died due to severe head injuries.
11. The accused is the only person who was with deceased and was seen holding a sharp object (panga) which could inflict the injuries observed on the deceased and which caused the death.
12. The ingredients of offence of murder are on prima facie basis disclosed by evidence on required standard thus warranting the accused to render a defence thereof.
13. The court thus puts the accused on his defence as he has a case to answer.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MAKUENI THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019.
.......................
C. KARIUKI
JUDGE