[2019] KEHC 2652 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, Stephen Wachira Wangara, for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Ramanlal T Bratt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict if no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 2652 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Stephen Wachira Wangara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Murder Case 17 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Murder / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, 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 Wachira Wangara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the accused should be acquitted at this stage for lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, Stephen Wachira Wangara, for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Ramanlal T Bratt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. The court declined to provide detailed reasons for this finding at this stage, in line with the guidance from Anthony Njine Njeru v R, to avoid prejudicing the accused's right to a fair defence. Consequently, the accused was called upon to address the court in his defence as required by Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is informed of his right to address the court personally or through his advocate, to give evidence on his own behalf or make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence.
- Defence hearing scheduled for 3rd February 2020.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERUGOYA
CRIMINAL MURDER NO. 17 OF 2014
REPUBLIC....................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STEPHEN WACHIRA WANGARA...................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused person Stephen Wachira Wangara is charged with Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on 2. 8.2014 at Kirimaini village in Kirinyaga West District within Kirinyaga County he murdered Fredrick Kinyua Wachira.
2. The accused person denied the charge. The prosecution called eleven witnesses in the effort to prove the charge against the accused and closed their case.
3. The counsel for the accused Mr. Ndana submitted that the accused has no case to answer and should be set free at this stage.
4. For the state it was submitted that the prosecution has placed sufficient material evidence to demonstrate that the accused should be put on his defence.
5. I have considered the evidence adduced and the submissions which were made at the close of the prosecution case. The test of a prima facie was laid down in the case of Ramanlal T Bratt – Vs – R (1957) E.Awhere the court stated: A prima facie case is one on which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.
6. Having considered the evidence adduced, I find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused to be called upon to address the court in his defence.
7. At this stage, I need not give reason as this may prejudice the defence of the accused if he opts to give a defence or it may be concluded that the court has already made findings without even giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. The Court of Appeal in the case of Anthony Njine Njeru -Vs- R Nairobi Cr. Appeal No. 77/2006held that if the court concludes that a prima facie case has been made, it should not give reasons for that finding because it may appear as if the court has made up its mind even before hearing the defence. It is therefore sufficient to inform the accused that there is a prima facie case which he is required to answer.
8. The court is then obliged to comply with Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The accused is informed that he has a right to address the court either personally or by his advocate, to give evidence on his own or make unsworn statement and call witnesses in his defence.
Dated at Kerugoya this 11th day of October 2019.
L.W. GITARI
JUDGE
11. 10. 19
Ruling read out in open court, Ms Muthoni Prosecuting Counsel,
Accused Present,
Mr. Ndana Advocate for him
Court Clerk Gichia
Mr. Ndana; The accused will five sworn evidence. He will not call witnesses.
Defence Hearing on 3. 2.2020
L.W. GITARI
JUDGE
11. 10. 19