[2021] KEHC 7744 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if uncontroverted, would justify a conviction for murder. Applying the standard for a prima facie case as articulated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R and subsequent authorities, the court held that both accused persons have a case to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7744 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Stanley Murage; Defendant: Joel Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 11 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether Accused Have a Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to make their defence.
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- 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 Murage
Defendant
Joel Mwangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether Accused Have a Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
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 adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if uncontroverted, would justify a conviction for murder. Applying the standard for a prima facie case as articulated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R and subsequent authorities, the court held that both accused persons have a case to answer. The court declined to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence at this stage to avoid prejudicing the defence, in line with established principles. Consequently, the accused are required to make their defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to make their defence.
Orders
- Each accused shall make his defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT GARSEN
CRIMINAL CASE NO 11 OF 2016
REPUBLIC............................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STANLEY MURAGE............................................................................1ST ACCUSED
JOEL MWANGI....................................................................................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. Stanley Murage and Joel Mwangi (1st and 2nd Accused) are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. They are alleged to have murdered Peter Muiruri alias Bara on 14th March 2016 at Chakamba market Kipini Division in Tana Delta Sub-County within Tana River County.
2. The two Accused took plea on 13th May 2016 and the trial proceeded before Ongeri J who heard 5 witnesses. Thereafter I took over the trial and heard one witness. At the close of the Prosecution case, both the Prosecution and defence counsel told the court that they did not wish to make any submissions.
3. The summary of the Prosecution case as stated in the evidence of 5 witnesses is that the deceased was assaulted by the Accused persons on the allegation that he had stolen a radio. The assault took place at the garage of the 1st Accused. The deceased was later treated in the local health facility in Witu from where he was taken to Mpeketoni Health Centre before being referred to Kenyatta National Hospital. He later succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at the Thika Level 5 Hospital. A post-mortem report (Exhibit 1) was produced in this regard.
4. I have carefully considered the prosecution evidence on record, and as summarized above. In so doing, I have borne in mind the provisions of section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and what constitutes a prima facie case.
5. In defining a prima facie case, the Court of Appeal in Anthony Njue Njeru –vs- Republic (2006) eKLR cited the case ofRamanlal Trambaklal Bhatt V R [1957] E.A. 332 at p. 334-335 where the court stated thus:-
“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one:-
“Which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
….It may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case,” but at least it must mean 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.”
6. I have also borne in mind that when making a finding on a prima facie case, a trial court is not expected to render a detailed analysis of the evidence unless the ruling leads to an acquittal. It is also important not to analyse the evidence if the Accused will be put on his defence as such detailed analysis may compromise the evidentiary quality of the defence to be mounted. See Republic V Samuel Karanja Kiria Cr. Case No.13 of 2004 Nairobi [2009] eKLR.
7. I have carefully considered all the evidence on record and the respective submissions of the parties. It is my finding that the prosecution has discharged the burden of establishing a prima facie case against each Accused. Each Accused shall therefore make his defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
8. Orders accordingly.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed this 14th day ofApril, 2021.
................................
R. LAGAT KORIR
JUDGE
Ruling delivered in the virtual presence of the Accused, Defence Counsel Mr. Omwancha, Mr. J. Mwangi for the DPP, and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).