[2025] KEHC 3472 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3472 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Bernard Wambugu Wahome
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E020 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Prosecution Closes Its Case
- Outcome
- Accused to be put on his defence.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Murder, Circumstantial Evidence
- 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
Bernard Wambugu Wahome
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Prosecution Closes Its 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 on record, including circumstantial and eyewitness evidence, is sufficient to warrant the accused being called to answer the charge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation was offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused was required to be put on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused to be put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is hereby put on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Wahome (Criminal Case E020 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 3472 (KLR) (20 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3472 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyahururu
Criminal Case E020 of 2021
LN Mutende, J
March 20, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Bernard Wambugu Wahome
Accused
Ruling
1. Bernard Wambugu Wahome, the Accused, was at home with his nuclear family on the night of 26th August 2021, and they retired to bed. The accused and Agnes Etot Lologoi (deceased) his wife slept in their bedroom. In the morning the deceased was found dead, with a deep cut on the neck and the accused was missing.
2. The prosecution having closed its case, this court is required to establish whether a prima facie case has been established requiring the accused to be placed on his defence. In the celebrated case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt -Vs- Republic [1957] E.A 332, it was stated that:“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.”ii.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 mine).
3. Looking at crucial evidence on record, eye witnesses pointed at the accused as the one responsible for the crime.
4. Considering circumstantial evidence on record, I am satisfied that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused as defined in the case of Bhatt v Republic (supra), that requires him to address the court on his defence in compliance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. ……………………L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE