[2018] KEHC 7950 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, which identified the accused as the person who struck the deceased with a stone resulting in her death, was credible and unchallenged. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic, the court held that the prosecution had established a prima...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 7950 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Valiki Mwanzia alias Kitheka Valiki Mwanzia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 30 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on his defence.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case, 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
Valiki Mwanzia alias Kitheka Valiki Mwanzia
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 to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced is credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction if unchallenged.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, which identified the accused as the person who struck the deceased with a stone resulting in her death, was credible and unchallenged. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic, the court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The evidence was not merely a scintilla but was sufficient, if unchallenged, to sustain a conviction. Therefore, the accused was ordered to be put on his defence.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence pursuant to Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 30 OF 2015
REPUBLIC...............................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
VALIKI MWANZIAALIAS KITHEKA VALIKI MWANZIA....ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. Valiki Mwanzia aliasKitheka Valiki Mwanzia(Accused) is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203as read with Section 204of the Penal Code (Cap. 63), Laws of Kenya.Particulars of the offence are that on the 28thday of July, 2014at around 5. 00 p.m.at Ndithini Village,in Kiangwa Sub-location,within Kitui County,he murdered Lenah John Mulonzia(Deceased).
2. Facts of the case are that on the 28thday of July, 2014,the Deceased, a wife of PW1 John Mulonziawas at their kiosk at about 4. 00 p.m.when the Accused who was in company of Tito Ndambukipassed by. They later returned at 5. 30 p.m.and provoked PW1 whom they accused of calling them thieves. The Accused used a catapult to hit him on the head with a stone. The Deceased intervened and snatched the Accused the catapult. Tito Ndambukiacted by giving a stone to the Accused who used it to hit the Deceased on the head. She was rushed to hospital and pronounced dead on arrival.
3. A postmortem was done on her body which established that the cause of death was severe head injury secondary to assault.
4. In the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic (1957) EA 332the Court stated that:
“The onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a prima facie case is not made out if at the close of the prosecution’s, the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction….. The question whether there is a case to answer cannot depend 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.”
5. The evidence adduced by the Prosecution identifying the Accused as the person who hit the Deceased on the head using a stone is not challenged. Therefore, I find the Prosecution having established a prima faciecase warranting the Accused being put on his defence, pursuant to the provisions of Section 306(2)of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kitui this 7th day of February, 2018.
L. N. MUTENDE
JUDGE