[2005] KEHC 209 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was fundamentally contradictory, particularly due to the testimony of P.W.8, a prosecution witness who exonerated the accused. The court held that a prima facie case cannot be established where the prosecution's own evidence destroys its case, and it is not the role of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 209 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Sarah Wanjiku Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 17 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Contradictory Evidence, Burden of Proof, Acquittal
- 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
Sarah Wanjiku Kamau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant her being put on her defence.
- 2 Whether contradictory evidence from prosecution witnesses can sustain a criminal charge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was fundamentally contradictory, particularly due to the testimony of P.W.8, a prosecution witness who exonerated the accused. The court held that a prima facie case cannot be established where the prosecution's own evidence destroys its case, and it is not the role of the court to fill gaps in the prosecution's case. As a result, the accused could not be called upon to answer a case that had not been made out against her, and she was acquitted accordingly.
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused, Sarah Wanjiku Kamau, is acquitted and to be released forthwith unless lawfully detained in another cause.
- Assessors and civilian witnesses to be paid their respective allowances.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
CRIMINAL CASE 17 OF 2004
REPUBLIC……………………………………………….………..…..PROSECUTOR
Versus
SARAH WANJIKU KAMAU…………..……………………………………ACCUSED
RULING
The prosecution’s case has been closed and the question at this stage under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code is whether this court considers that there is sufficient evidence for the Accused person to be put on her own defence.
In other words, has the prosecution established a prima facie case against the Accused person?
A prima facie case cannot exist where there is contradiction because in such a situation, the court cannot come out with one story to confront the Accused with.
It is the duty of the prosecution, and not the duty of the court, to prove its case against the Accused beyond any reasonable doubt and that standard cannot be achieved where the prosecution’s case has contradictory evidence.
The evidence of P.W.8: John Kamau Njoroge, completely destroys the prosecution’s case. He is the husband of the Accused and the father of the deceased child and has told the court that the Accused has not committed and could not have committed this offence. That is evidence adduced by a prosecution witness. Had that evidence been adduced by the Accused, the position may have been different. But when such evidence is on the side of the prosecution, how does the court treat it unless the court plays part of the prosecution which the court, as an impartial arbitor, should not play.
In the circumstances therefore, I do not find a prima facie case against the Accused – and I therefore do not find her guilty and do hereby acquit her.
She be released forthwith unless lawfully detained in some other cause.
Assessors as well as civilian witnesses who have given evidence in this case be paid their respective allowances.
Thanks the Assessors who have taken their time listening to the evidence adduced in this case up to the end.
Dated this 17th day of February 2005.
J. M. KHAMONI
JUDGE