Republic v Harun Mureithi Guchu [2016] KEHC 2799 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4 OF 2015

REPUBLIC  …………………..PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

HARUN MUREITHI GUCHU …….. ACCUSED

RULING

[1]  HARUN MUREITHI GUCHU is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.  The prosecution called a total of 7 witnesses and then closed its case.  In accordance with the provisions of section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75, I am required to consider whether the accused has a case to answer.

[2]  At this stage the court in determining whether the accused has a case to answer the court should establish whether the 7 witnesses called by the prosecution established a prima facie case. The case RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLALBHATT V. REPUBLIC (1957)EA 332  defined a prima facie case as follows:-

“It 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.”

[3] Bearing in mind that definition and having considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I do find that the accused has a case to answer.  Accordingly in compliance with section 306(2)ofCap 75 I hereby inform the accused that he has a right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate, he has a right to give evidence on his own behalf or to make an unsworn statement and to call witnesses in his defence.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH  DAY OF JULY 2016.

MARY KASANGO

JUDGE

CORAM:

Before Justice Mary Kasango

Court Assistant – Njue

Appellant:  Harun Mureithi Nguchu  …………………….

For the State: ….....................................

COURT

Ruling delivered in open court.

MARY KASANGO

JUDGE