[2018] KEHC 10232 (KLR)
The court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, Sunday Macharia Kamau, for the offence of murder. The evidence presented, particularly from the sisters of the accused and other prosecution witnesses, was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 10232 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Defendant: Sunday Macharia Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 87 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused placed on his defence.
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Malice Aforethought, Manslaughter, 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
Respondent
Sunday Macharia Kamau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / 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 to require him to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented discloses malice aforethought or supports a lesser charge of manslaughter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, Sunday Macharia Kamau, for the offence of murder. The evidence presented, particularly from the sisters of the accused and other prosecution witnesses, was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to determine conclusively whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but only whether there is enough evidence to call for an explanation from the accused. The court also noted that elaborate comments on the evidence should be avoided at this stage to prevent prejudicing the defence. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
Accused placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence to answer the charge of murder.
- The accused is advised of his rights under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 87 OF 2015
REPUBLIC..............................................................RESPONDENT
VERSUS
SUNDAY MACHARIA KAMAU.................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused 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 of 29th day of August 2015 at Kambi Moto Estate in Huruma area within Nairobi County murdered FLORENCE WANGECHI.
2. He pleaded not guilty and to prove its case against him the prosecution called a total eleven (11) witnesses and the close of the prosecution case it was submitted by the prosecution that prima facie case had been made out against the accused to enable the court place him on his defence.
3. On the other hand the defence filed written submission allegedly under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code which applies to the subordinate court. It was submitted that there was no malice aforethought established since the deceased and the accused were lovers who were staying together and that the cause of the differences was provocation by the deceased inviting another boyfriend to the place where they were drinking. It was therefore submitted that the accused should have been charged with manslaughter.
4. At this stage of the proceedings all that the court has to determine is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to enable the court place the accused persons on their defence. Prima facie case has been defined in the case of RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT v REPUBLIC (1957) EA 332 as follows:-
“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot argue that a prima facie case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction. This is perilously near suggesting that the court could not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case, nor can we argue that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence irrespective of its credibility or weight sufficient to put the accused on his defence.”
A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence… It may not be easy to define what is meant by 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.”
(Emphasis added)
5. In the case of REPUBLIC v JAGJIVAN M. PATEL & Others (1) TLR as follows:-
“All the court has to decide at the close of evidence 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 it may be 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 borderline case where the court, though not satisfied as to conclusiveness of the prosecution evidence, is yet of opinion that the case made out is one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
(Emphasis added)
6. The court is further cautioned not to make elaborate comments on the evidence on record if the same was to put the accused on his defence so as not to prejudice the defence which the accused might opt to offer.
7. With this in mind I have looked at the evidence tendered in court on behalf of the prosecution and in particular the evidence of PW2 and PW4 both sisters of the accused and the accused submission herein and have come to the conclusion that prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to enable me put the accused on his defence which I hereby do so as to give the same an opportunity to state his side of the story and to advance the defences which might be available to him as indicated in his submission. The accused is herby advised of his rights under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED at Nairobi this 25th day of September, 2018.
...........................
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms. Wegulu for the State
Mr. Kiptum for Nyachoti for the accused
Mr. Molombo for Chege watching brief for the family
Accused present
Court assistant Karwitha