[2021] KEHC 3989 (KLR)
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and guided by the standard for establishing a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R, found that the prosecution had established sufficient evidence which, if unchallenged, could result in a conviction. The court emphasized that at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3989 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Silas Mukira; Defendant: Stanley Thiaine
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 36 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused persons found to have a case to answer; put on their defence
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure, 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
Silas Mukira
Defendant
Stanley Thiaine
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 persons to warrant their being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, if unchallenged, could lead to a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and guided by the standard for establishing a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R, found that the prosecution had established sufficient evidence which, if unchallenged, could result in a conviction. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to make a final determination on the merits but only to assess whether the accused persons should be called upon to answer the charge. Accordingly, the court ruled that both accused persons have a case to answer and should be put on their defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
accused persons found to have a case to answer; put on their defence
Orders
- The accused persons shall be put on their defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The rights of the accused persons under section 306(2) shall be explained to them.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 36 OF 2016
REPUBLIC.................................................................................................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
SILAS MUKIRA...........................................................................................1ST ACCUSED
STANLEY THIAINE...................................................................................2ND ACCUSED
RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER
1. The accused persons were jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The prosecution’s case is that on 24th June 2016, at about 22. 00 hours, the deceased and his wife Esther Makena were in the kitchen when they were attacked by a group of four people two of whom are the accused persons and the deceased was killed. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to trial, the prosecution calling 5 witnesses to prove the charge.
2. The court has considered as required under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code whether there is the evidence that the accused persons or any of the accused persons committed the offence. At this stage, however, the court is required to be satisfied only that a prima facie case exists as held in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R(1957) EA 332, 335 ta prima facie case is “one on which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
3. Upon considering the evidence presented herein by the Prosecution, without exhaustive discussion of the merits so as not to prejudice the fair trial of the case as counseled by Kibera Karimi v. R (1979) KLR 36, and Festo Wandera Mukando v. R (1976 – 80) KLR 1626, the court find that the Prosecution has established a prima facie case against the two accused persons.
4. Consequently, the accused shall be put on their defence in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and their rights thereunder shall be explained to them.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances
MS B. Nandwa Prosecution Counsel for the State
Mr. Atheru Advocate for the accused persons.