[2019] KEHC 9018 (KLR)
The court found that, based on the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution—including both direct and circumstantial evidence—there exists a prima facie case against both accused persons. The evidence, particularly the testimony regarding the 1st accused's alleged delivery of the deceased to unknown men...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9018 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Tabitha Waithira Irungu; Defendant: Phillip Kamau Wachira
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 46 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Both accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are placed on their defence.
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Case to Answer, Circumstantial Evidence, 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
Tabitha Waithira Irungu
Defendant
Phillip Kamau Wachira
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's 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, both direct and circumstantial, sufficiently connects the accused to the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, based on the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution—including both direct and circumstantial evidence—there exists a prima facie case against both accused persons. The evidence, particularly the testimony regarding the 1st accused's alleged delivery of the deceased to unknown men prior to her death, and the forensic and police evidence, was deemed sufficient to require an explanation from the accused. The court was guided by established legal principles on what constitutes a case to answer and determined that the threshold had been met. Consequently, both accused were placed on their defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Both accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are placed on their defence.
Orders
- Both accused are placed on their defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 46 OF 2012
[FORMERLY NYERI HCCR 26 OF 2012]
REPUBLIC.........................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
TABITHA WAITHIRA IRUNGU.....................................1ST ACCUSED
PHILLIP KAMAU WACHIRA........................................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. The two accused persons are charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars are that on the 23rd July 2012 at Kanjahi village in Murang’a County, they murdered Alice Wachera Chege.
3. They both pleaded notguilty. The prosecution called tenwitnesses. Learned counsel for the accused, Mr. Kirubi, filed submissions dated 11th January 2019. The court stamp must be erroneous because it reads 14th August 2018 long before the close of the prosecutions case.
4. Learned Prosecution Counsel, Ms. Gichuru, did not file submissions.
5. I have considered the submissions. There is both direct andcircumstantial evidence surrounding the homicide. I have paid heed to the material evidence connecting the 2nd accused to the death of the deceased.
6. It is true that the 1st accused was in police custody on 23rd July 2012. But there were suggestions by some witnesses that the 1st accused delivered the deceased to some four men on 18th or 19th July 2012, some days before her death. The men were in a car; the destination was to be Kayole. The body of the deceased was found on 23rd July 2012 stuffed into a sack in Mathioya River.
7. There is the additional evidence from the pathologist (PW8) and that of two police officers (PW9 and PW10).
8. I am well guided by Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 332, R v Kipkering arap Koske & another 16 EACA 135 (1949). On the digest of the evidence of the all the ten witnesses, I am persuaded that the Republic has established a case requiring an explanation by the accused.
9. Accordingly, under the provisions of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I place both accused on their defence.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 27th day of March 2019.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of-
Accused.
Mr. Kirubi for the accused.
Ms. Gichuru for the Republic.
Ms. Dorcas and Ms. Elizabeth, Court Clerks.