https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9347

Republic v Wanja (Criminal Case E034 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 9347 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9347 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Criminal Case E034 of 2023 FR Olel, J June 29, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Wilfred Kimani Wanja Accused Ruling 1.The accused person, Wilfred Kimani Wanja , were charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on the 9th day of September 2023, at around 0400hrs at Githurai 45 Area in Githurai sub-county within Kiambu Count, murdered Zipporah Waithera. 2.The prosecution called two (2) witnesses in support of their case and were unable get other witnesses and thus closed their case. PW1 Nancy Njeri, testified that the deceased was her daughter, who worked at Quick Matt supermarket, and she had previously introduced the accused to her as her boyfriend. On 08.09.2023 at about 11.00pm, one Lucy Nyambura, the deceased house girl did call her and informed her that her daughter had fallen down and injured herself. She then disconnected the phone, and when she called her back, she clarified that the deceased had been assaulted by the accused person and she was unconscious. 3.She travelled to Nairobi overnight from Njoro and when she arrived, she was picked by her nephew, John Macharia, who informed her that her daughter had rushed to a private hospital at Githurai, and upon arrival at the said hospital, they unfortunately found that she had succumbed to the injuries sustained. They later organized and transferred her body to Kenyatta University Mortuary. 4.PW2 John Macharia, confirmed that the deceased was his cousin, but he had not met the accused person before. On 09.09.2023, at about 4.00am, he was called by Wanjiru, who was a sister to the deceased and she requested him to go check on the deceased since she had been rushed to St John’s Hospital situated in Githurai. Upon reaching the said hospital he found his cousin, but unfortunately, she had already passed on. From the hospital, he went to the deceased house to check on her children, who he found with their househelp and then went to report the incident at DCI Githurai police station. But before reporting the incident, he did pick PW1 from the bus station. 5.The question that this court has to deal with and answer at this stage is therefore, is whether based on the evidence before this Court, the Court after properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence may, as opposed to will, convict if the accused chose to give no evidence. It was therefore held in Ronald Nyaga Kiura vs. Republic [2018] eKLR wherein paragraph 22 it is stated as follows:“It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person. 6.In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335, the court stated as follows:“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the 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 would 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 agree 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 is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “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.” 7.I have considered the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution, and find that it unfortunately falls woefully short of establishing a prima facie case, for which the accused may need to respond. This is unfortunate, as the deceased may have been a victim of gender-based violence and deserved better, but the courts hands are tied and has no option but to acquit the accused person under Section 210 of the criminal procedure code. 8.It is so ordered. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT MARSABIT THIS 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2026.FRANCIS RAYOLA OLELJUDGEDelivered on the virtual platform, Team this 29th day of JUNE, 2026.In the presence of: -…………………………. Accused Person……………………………. For ODPP……………………………..Court Assistant