[2018] KEHC 5556 (KLR)
The court found that, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly from PW1 and PW3, a prima facie case had been established against the accused. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5556 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Stanley Kariuki Walugoro alias Karish
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 24 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence; prima facie case established.
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Adverse Inference, Dying Declaration
- 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 Kariuki Walugoro alias Karish
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to require the accused to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether failure to call certain witnesses warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution.
- 3 Whether the uncorroborated dying declaration is sufficient at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly from PW1 and PW3, a prima facie case had been established against the accused. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence to require the accused to make a defence. The court declined to make a final determination on the credibility or conclusiveness of the evidence, noting that even in borderline cases, if the evidence might possibly sustain a conviction upon full consideration, the accused should be put on his defence. The court also acknowledged the defence's...
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence; prima facie case established.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused is advised of his rights under Article 50 of the Constitution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 OF 2014
REPUBLIC..................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STANLEY KARIUKI WALUGORO ALIAS KARISH...ACCUSED
RULING
1. The Accused STANLEY KARIUKI WALUGOROaliasKARISH 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 the 28th day of March, 2014 at Mukuru Kwa Njenga village in Embakasi Division within Nairobi County murdered JOSEPH MUTISO MUTUKU.
2. He pleaded not guilty and to prove its case the prosecution called a total of five (5) witnesses and at the close of the prosecution it was submitted on behalf of the accused that the prosecution failed to call crucial witnesses including the younger brother of PW1 and one Rasta in whose house the deceased was allegedly beaten and therefore the court should make an adverse inference that the said witnesses if called could not have supported the prosecution case in support of which the case of JAMLECK MWANIKI NJURURI v REPUBLIC High Court at Meru Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2010 was submitted.
3. It was further submitted that the alleged death declaration made by the deceased in the presence of PW1 was not corroborated and the court was invited to exercise caution thereon as stated in REPUBLIC v PETER MBURU MUTHONI [2005] eKLR.
4. The prosecution opted to make no submissions but relied upon the evidence on record.
5. 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.”
6. I have taken into account the evidence tendered herein and in particular evidence of PW1 and PW3 and without saying much thereon so as not to compromise the defence likely to be offered by the accused person find and hold that a prima facie case has been made by the prosecution to enable the court put the accused on his defence which I hereby do.
7. The accused is therefore advised of his rights under Article 50 of the Constitution and Section 306 of Criminal Procedure Code and is called upon through the legal advice of his Advocate to select how he intends to defend himself.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at Nairobi this 22nd day of January, 2018.
.......................
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Meroka for the state
Mr. Oduor for the accused
Accused present
Court clerk: Karwitha