[2024] KEHC 11295 (KLR)
The court found that, upon considering the cumulative evidence of the 8 prosecution witnesses, there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the subject. Although no murder weapon was recovered and some witnesses were not present at the scene, the testimonies of PW3, PW4, and PW8 placed the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 11295 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: SOO (Minor)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E012 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Subject found with a case to answer and placed on his defence.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- 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
SOO (Minor)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the subject to warrant being placed on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to require the subject to answer to the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, upon considering the cumulative evidence of the 8 prosecution witnesses, there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the subject. Although no murder weapon was recovered and some witnesses were not present at the scene, the testimonies of PW3, PW4, and PW8 placed the subject at the scene and established a connection between the subject and the deceased. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but only to assess whether the evidence adduced requires the subject to answer to the charge. The court concluded that the prosecution had met this threshold and accordingly placed the...
Court Disposition
Subject found with a case to answer and placed on his defence.
Orders
- The subject S.O.O is found with a case to answer and is hereby placed on his defence.
- The provisions of Article 50(2)(i)(k)(l) of the Constitution as read with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be read out and explained to the subject.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Republic v SOO (Criminal Case E012 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 11295 (KLR) (25 September 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 11295 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Criminal Case E012 of 2023
RE Aburili, J
September 25, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
SOO (Minor)
Subject
Ruling
1. The subject herein S.O.O is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. Particulars of information dated 7th June 2023 as amended and substituted vide information dated 7th February 2024 are that on the 27th day of February, 2023, at Abwao village, Bolo Location in Nyakach Sub-county, within Kisumu County, the subject murdered Florence Adhiambo Opondo.
3. The subject was mentally examined and found to be sound to stand trial.
4. The prosecution called 8 witnesses who testified on the alleged murder of the deceased.
5. At the close of the prosecution’s case, Mr. Orego counsel for the subject submitted that there was no evidence to warrant the subject being placed on his defence. That PW 1 – PW 6 were not at the scene of crime and that the testimony of PW 8 was not reliable because he does not say how he saw the accused stab the deceased.
6. That this witness contradicts PW 4 who said that he was not at the scene. That for a commotion that allegedly took one hour, it is not possible that no neighbour went to the scene, that no sword was recovered from the subject.
7. Counsel prayed for the acquittal of the subject at this stage.
8. The prosecution did not submit. They left the matter to the court to determine based on the evidence adduced.
9. I have considered all the above submissions and the evidence adduced by the 8 witnessed cumulatively. It is not in doubt that no weapon allegedly used in the alleged murder of Florence Adhiambo Opondo was recovered. It is also true that the incident took place at night and from the record, PW 4 and PW 8 were on the material day at the place where the alleged murder took place. PW 3 heard the noises and the verbal engagement between the subject herein and the deceased who was her grandmother, and what Samson, the subject herein allegedly told the deceased, should the said subject be arrested, with the subject questioning the deceased why she had reported him to the chief.
10. At this stage, this court is not expected to determine the guilt of the subject beyond reasonable doubt but to establish whether a prima facie case has been made out against him to warrant him being placed on his defence.
11. Having considered the entire evidence adduced, I am satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the subject to warrant him be placed on his defence.
12. Accordingly, the subject S.O.O is found with a case to answer and is hereby placed on his defence.
13. The provisions of Article 50(2) (i) (k) (l) of the Constitution as read with Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are hereby read out and explained to the subject as to his rights which are guaranteed.
14. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 25THDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGE