[2019] KEHC 5578 (KLR)
The court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to convict the accused persons. Therefore, a prima facie case had been established against both accused under the standard set out in Ramanlal Bhatt v R and as required by section 306 of the Criminal Procedure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5578 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Stephen Mururu; Defendant: Naftali Muriungi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 18 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their defence.
- 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
Stephen Mururu
Defendant
Naftali Muriungi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer After 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.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to convict the accused persons. Therefore, a prima facie case had been established against both accused under the standard set out in Ramanlal Bhatt v R and as required by section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused persons were accordingly placed on their defence and informed of their rights to address the court, give evidence, or make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses if they so wished.
Court Disposition
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and placed on their defence.
Orders
- Accused persons are placed on their defence.
- Accused persons informed of their rights under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
HCR CASE 18 OF 2015
REPUBLIC..............................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STEPHEN MURURU...............................................1ST ACCUSED
NAFTALI MURIUNGI...........................................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. The two accused persons were charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 s read with section 204 of the penal code CAP 63 of the Laws of Kenya. The prosecution closed its case on 20thJune 2019, after having called 7 witnesses. I will now determine whether or not the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons as to call upon him to enter his defence. This is the question that now falls for determination before this court. See Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that:-
306. (1) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or any one of several accused committed the offence shall, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
(2) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is evidence that the accused person or any one or more of several accused persons committed the offence, shall inform each such accused person of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate (if any), to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence, and in all cases shall require him or his advocate (if any) to state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself; and upon being informed thereof, the judge shall record the fact.
(3) If the accused person says that he does not intend to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, then the advocate for the prosecution may sum up the case against the accused person; but if the accused person says that he intends to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, the court shall call upon him to enter upon his defence.
2. A Prima facie case has been said to be;
‘’…one which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence would convict if no explanation is offered by the defence’’. See RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R (1957) EA 332(CA)
3. Upon perusal of the evidence adduced, there is prima facie case established against the accused persons. Accordingly the accused persons are hereby placed on their defence.The accused persons have been duly informed of their right to address the court, either personally or by their advocate, to give evidence on their own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in their defence. The accused persons or their advocate are required to state whether they intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused persons themselves. Section 306 of the CPC complied with. It is so ordered.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
RULING DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019.
In the presence of:
C/A: Mr Kinoti
1st Accused – Present in person
2nd Accused – Present in person
Mr Mutuma Advocate for the accused: Mrs Ntarangwi Advocate holding brief
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
Court
Accused persons informed how to defend themselves in Kimeru and they reply:-
A1:- Sworn statement. No witness
A2:- Unsworn statement. No witness.
Order:
Defence Hearing – 31. 10. 2019
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE