[2017] KEHC 8612 (KLR)
The court held that at the close of the prosecution case, the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but whether a prima facie case has been established. Upon reviewing the evidence, particularly from PW1 and PW5, and considering the accused's constitutional rights, the court found that the prosecution had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8612 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Simon Mueli Munyasya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 66 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence.
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Post Mortem Evidence
- 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
Simon Mueli Munyasya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved the death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt at this stage.
- 3 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to require the accused to make a defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that at the close of the prosecution case, the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but whether a prima facie case has been established. Upon reviewing the evidence, particularly from PW1 and PW5, and considering the accused's constitutional rights, the court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require the accused to make a defence. The court emphasized that even in borderline cases, if the evidence might possibly sustain a conviction upon full consideration, the accused should be put on his defence. Accordingly, the accused was put on his defence and advised of his rights under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused is advised of his rights under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 66 OF 2011
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………………..…PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
SIMON MUELI MUNYASYA …………….…..………………....………..ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused SIMON MULEI MUNYASYA was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code the particulars of which were that on night of 11th August, 2011 at Mukuru Kwa Njenga in Embakasi Division within Nairobi County murdered BERNARD MUNYAO KIOKO.
2. He pleaded not guilty to the said charges and to prove its case the prosecution called a total of six (6) witnesses and at the close of the prosecution case both the prosecution and the defence made submissions on whether the prosecution had made up a case to enable the court place the accused on his defence.
SUBMISSIONS
3. On behalf of the defence it was submitted the none of the prosecution witnesses was truthful and that their testimonies cannot be used by the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against the accused person. It was submitted that the prosecution had failed to discharge its duty in establishing a prima facie case and reliance was placed on the following cases:-
(1) Eldoret Hccr No. 2 Of 2008
Republic Vs Cornelius Kipkoskei Kogo
(2) Meru Criminal Appeal No. 46 Of 2011
Solomon Kirimi Mrukaria Vs Republic
(3) Mombasa High Court Cr. Case No. 37 Of 2010
Republic Vs Rumba Nyawawi & Another
(4)Kakamega HCCR No 34 Of 2007
Republic Vs Joseph Shitandi & Another
4. It was submitted further that the prosecution merely tendered evidence that raised suspicion but which was not adequate to establish that the accused committed the crime. It was further submitted that the prosecution failed to produce a credible medical report or call a doctor who performed a post mortem on the alleged body of the deceased which therefore amounted to failure to prove the death of the deceased and the case of Republic Vs Mbaru Rai alias Chaka Rai Mombasa HCC CR. No. 22 of 2005 was relied upon
5. On behalf of the State it was submitted that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused and that death was proved beyond reasonable doubt through the post mortem report and that malice was proved through the evidence of PW1 Reuben Kilonzo.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
6. At this stage, the issue is not whether or not the prosecution has established a case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt but whether a case has been made to justify calling upon the accused person to offer an explanation as was stated in the case of REPUBLIC v JAGJIVAN M. PATEL & Others (1) TLR as follows:-
“All the court has to decide at the close of the evidence in support of the charge is whether a case is made out against the accused just sufficiently to require him to make a defence, it may be a strong case or a weak case. The court is not required at this stage to apply its mind in deciding finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit or whether if believed it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively beyond reasonable doubt. A ruling that there is a case to answer would be justified in my opinion in a border line case where the court, though not satisfied as to the conclusiveness of the prosecution evidence, is yet of the opinion that the case made out is one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
7. From the evidence tendered before court and the submissions herein and in particular the evidence of PW1 Reuben Kilonzo Musyoka, PW5 Samuel Macharia Kabangi and being alive to the accused person’s rights under Article 50(2) (1) the right to remain silent and not to testify during proceedings, I am satisfied and hold that the prosecution has proved a prima facie case to enable me which I hereby do put the accused on his defence. The accused is hereby advised of his rights under Section 306(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at Nairobi this 8th day of March 2017
………………………………….
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
No appearance for the State
Miss Kilonzo for Magero for the accused
Accused – present
Tabitha - court clerk