The High Court at Kerugoya found the prosecution had established a prima facie case in a murder trial and called the accused to enter defence under section 306(2).
Republic v Kibunja & 3 others [2025] KEHC 10414 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case E002 of 2022
Judge
JN Kamau
The High Court at Vihiga found a prima facie case against four accused persons after the prosecution closed its case, and ordered them to defend themselves.
The court found that the prosecution, through the evidence of seven witnesses and specifically the testimonies of pw1, pw4, and pw6, had established a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court held that the evidence, if unchallenged, would be sufficient to convict. Therefore, the accused must be put on his defence to answer the charge. The court emphasized that a reasoned ruling is not required unless the accused is acquitted at this stage, as per the…
Director of Public Prosecution v Kurulishi & another [2025] KEHC 9821 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case 60 of 2019
Judge
S Mbungi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons for the offence of murder. This conclusion was reached after considering the testimonies of seven prosecution witnesses and the applicable legal principles regarding the burden of proof and the definition of a prima facie case. The court applied the test set out in R.T. Bhatt v Republic, holding that the evidence, if left unchallenged, could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict. The court also observed that it was not required to give detailed reasons at this stage, in line with appellate gui…
The court found that the prosecution had adduced evidence establishing the death of the deceased, the cause of death as unlawful (blunt force trauma), and that the accused was last seen with the deceased. Applying the legal test for a prima facie case, the court held that the evidence, if unchallenged, could support a conviction. The court emphasized that its role at this stage is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to assess whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to require the accused to present a defence. The court concluded that the prosecution had met the threshold under S…