[2019] KEHC 9041 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including the altercation between the accused and the deceased on the material night, their cohabitation in the same compound, and the discovery of the deceased's body the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9041 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Defendant: William Mburu Mungai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 25 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence.
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Circumstantial Evidence, 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
Respondent
William Mburu Mungai
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
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 circumstantial evidence adduced links the accused to the murder of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including the altercation between the accused and the deceased on the material night, their cohabitation in the same compound, and the discovery of the deceased's body the following morning. The court was guided by the principles in Bhatt v Republic and R v Kipkering arap Koske, holding that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25 OF 2012
[FORMERLY NYERI HCCR 36 OF 2011]
REPUBLIC.........................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
WILLIAM MBURU MUNGAI.................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused is charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars are that on the night of 16th and 17th November 2011 at Gatune village, Githima Sub-location, Murang’a County, he murdered Evans Mungai Kibunja.
3. He pleaded notguilty. The prosecution called sixwitnesses. Learned counsel for the accused, Mr. Kirubi, filed submissions on 31st January 2019. Learned Prosecution Counsel, Ms. Gichuru, opted not do so.
4. I have considered the submissions and the circumstantial evidence surrounding the homicide. I have in particular paid close attention to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 which suggests that the deceased and his son (the accused) had an altercation on the material night. The two were living in the same compound. The body of the deceased was found there the following morning. There is the additional evidence from the pathologist (PW5) and that of the investigating officer (PW6).
5. I am well guided by Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 332, R v Kipkering arap Koske & another 16 EACA 135 (1949). On the summation of the evidence of the all the six witnesses, I am persuaded that the Republic has established a prima facie case against the accused.
6. Accordingly, under the provisions of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I put the accused on his 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.