[2003] KEHC 269 (KLR)
The court found that the only evidence against the 2nd Accused was the confession of the 1st Accused, which, as a matter of law, is considered accomplice evidence and requires corroboration. Since there was no other evidence, direct or circumstantial, implicating the 2nd Accused, the prosecution failed to establish...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 269 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Samuel Muiruri Mwangi; Defendant: Robert Hunja Njamba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 51 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- 2nd Accused acquitted; 1st Accused to be put on his defence.
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Confession Evidence, Accomplice Evidence, Prima Facie Case, Section 306 Criminal Procedure Code
- 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 Muiruri Mwangi
Defendant
Robert Hunja Njamba
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the 2nd Accused to require him to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether a confession by a co-accused without corroboration is sufficient to sustain a charge against the 2nd Accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the only evidence against the 2nd Accused was the confession of the 1st Accused, which, as a matter of law, is considered accomplice evidence and requires corroboration. Since there was no other evidence, direct or circumstantial, implicating the 2nd Accused, the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him. The court held that an uncorroborated confession by a co-accused cannot be the basis for putting the 2nd Accused on his defence. Consequently, the 2nd Accused was acquitted under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The 1st Accused, however, was found to have a case to answer and was ordered to be put on his defence.
Court Disposition
2nd Accused acquitted; 1st Accused to be put on his defence.
Orders
- The 2nd Accused, Robert Hunja Njamba, is acquitted of the charge of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
- The 1st Accused, Samuel Muiruri Mwangi, is to be put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
H.C. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 51 OF 2001
REPUBLIC …………………………………………… PROSECUTOR
V E R S U S
SAMUEL MUIRURI MWANGI
ROBERT HUNJA NJAMBA …………..……….… ACCUSED
R U L I N G
After the prosecution closed its case against both the Accused persons, submissions were made on behalf of the Defence that the prosecution has failed to establish prima facie case against any of the Accused persons and thus they both should be acquitted under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
I shall deal with the case of 2nd Accused person first.
As per the evidence on record, the 2nd Accused was arrested on 14th December, 2001 on information received. The 1st Accused was arrested after him and has implicated him adversely in his statement under inquiry which was admitted in evidence after a trial within trial was held.
This, in short, is the evidence against the 2nd Accused. He has not been mentioned by any other prosecution witnesses.
I may simply repeat that it is trite law that a confession by an accused person implicating his co-accused is an accomplice evidence needing corroboration and that the need for corroboration is higher when the implication is not supported by other evidence, whether circumstantial or not. The accomplice evidence is treated as the weakest kind against the co-accused. In the present case as stated earlier there is no other evidence against the 2nd Accused involving him with the offence before the court so that it may lend some support or assurance to the confession by the 1st Accused person. The provisions of section 32 of the Evidence Act are clear and have been well defined by our courts by now.
In my view, the only evidence by way of a confession of a co-accused cannot be used against the 2nd Accused by the prosecution.
The test of prima facie case as has been defined in time tested case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt V/s R. (1957) EACA 3321 does not apply to the case against 2nd Accused.
I therefore find that the prosecution has failed to establish prima facie case against the 2nd Accused and I acquit him of the charge of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
I cannot say the aforesaid in respect of the 1st Accused and advisedly refrain from specifying the reasons for my finding. I thus order that the 1st Accused be put on his defence.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 9th day of July, 2003.
K. H. Rawal
Judge.