[2017] KEHC 2066 (KLR)
The court held that, at the close of the prosecution case, its duty is to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring the accused to be put on his defence. The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2066 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Stanley Juma Baraza
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 44 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused found to have a case to answer; put on his defence
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, No Case to Answer, Burden of Proof, Evidentiary Threshold
- 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
Stanley Juma Baraza
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to require the accused to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient in law to warrant the accused being called upon to answer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, at the close of the prosecution case, its duty is to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring the accused to be put on his defence. The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence linking the accused to the death of the deceased. The court emphasized that it is not required at this stage to make conclusive findings on the credibility or weight of the evidence. Applying the legal standard from Bhatt v R, the court concluded that the prosecution had met the evidentiary threshold to warrant the accused being called upon to answer the charge. Accordingly, the...
Court Disposition
accused found to have a case to answer; put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
- The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 44 OF 2016
REPUBLIC....................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STANLEY JUMA BARAZA.................ACCUSED
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. The Accused Person, Stanley Juma Baraza (“Accused Person”) is charged with murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. He is accused of unlawfully killing George Mbugua Mbogo (“Deceased”) on 17/05/2015 at Kwambira Trading Centre in Limuru Sub County within Kiambu County.
2. The Prosecution called seven witnesses. The narrative emerging from the Prosecution witnesses is that the Deceased was walking home on the material night at about 1:00am in the company of three friends. They were, apparently, quite drunk. They passed by the Total Petrol Station where the Accused Person was employed as a guard. After a brief disagreement with his colleagues, the Deceased was left alone. He lit up a cigarette and approached the Petrol Station. The Accused Person demanded that he put off the cigarette. When the Deceased declined, the Accused Person assaulted him with a rungu– hitting him at least two times in the ribs and once in the head. The Deceased fell upon the third blow. He was later proncouned dead at Tigoni Hospital.
3. Duncan Mugo Mburu was the Accused Person’s colleague at the Petrol Station. By his testimony, he was barely five metres away when he saw the incident unfold before his very eyes. He was the only eye witness to the incident and provided the pivotal evidence linking the Accused Person to the charged crime.
4. Karanja Mwangi Gakuru, another colleague, confirmed the presence of the Accused Person at the scene that night while PC Vincent Langat made the arrest on the night of the incident after the Accused Person had been attacked by a mob. PC David Njogu was the Investigating Officer who also testified in the trial. Finally, Dr. Peter Ndegwa testified that the cause of death was severe injury to the head consistent with blunt force trauma.
5. At the conclusion of the Prosecution case, the Defence urged me to conclude that the Prosecution had not proved its case sufficiently to put the Accused Person on his defence. The Defence argues that the only evidence available is circumstantial evidence and that most of the evidence is contradictory.
6. Suffice it to say that after analyzing the evidence presented by the Prosecution, and taking into consideration that at this stage my task is to determine, as a matter of law, if the Prosecution has placed sufficient reasonable evidence – without taking any conclusive view of the credibility and probative value of the evidence presented – to warrant putting the Accused Person on his Defence. See Bhatt – vs- R [1957] EA 332.
7. At this stage in the proceedings, the test is whether, as a matter of law, the Prosecution has adduced reasonable evidenceof the matter in respect of which it has the burden of proof. In my view, the Prosecution has placed enough material to make this a fit case to require the Accused Person to respond to the evidence adduced.
8. Consequently, the Court finds that the Accused Person has a case to answer and puts him on his defence. The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Delivered at Kiambu this 2ndday of November, 2017.
........................
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE