Republic v John Mugendi Nyaga [2021] KEHC 1830 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT EMBU

CRIMINAL CASE NO.6OF 2019

REPUBLIC..........................................................................................PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

JOHN MUGENDI NYAGA........................................................................ACCUSED

RULING

1. The accused person was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence being that, on the 14th day of January 2019 at Kiandari village, Embu North Sub County, Embu County within Eastern region, murdered Francis Muriithi Nyaga.

2. The accused person was arraigned in court on 12. 03. 2019 and the accused herein pleaded not guilty and a plea of not guilty entered against him.

3. The matter proceeded to full trial and the prosecution called a total of Seven (7) witnesses after which the prosecution closed its case.

4. This court has a duty to make a ruling upon the conclusion of the prosecution’s case on whether the accused person herein has a case to answer or not. When the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses has been concluded and the court has formed an opinion that there has not been presented evidence that the accused committed the offence should, after hearing any arguments from either the prosecution or advocate of the accused enter a finding of not guilty. (See Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code).

5. On the other hand, if the court holds the opinion that the prosecution has established a prima facie case, the court then should proceed to put the accused person on his defence. (See Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code). At this point, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination whether a prima facie case has been established to warrant the accused person to be put on his defence.

6. Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that a prima facie case is established where the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient for the court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation is offered by the accused person. This was the court’s view in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt –vs- R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335).

7. I adopt the holding in the case of Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR103where the court pronounced itself that there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer. It’s trite that reasons should only be given where the submission of no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted.

8. This court has considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this matter and from its entirety, it is my considered view that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused person herein.

9. I therefore order that the accused person be placed on his defence.

Delivered, datedandsignedatEmbuthis17thday of November, 2021.

L. NJUGUNA

JUDGE

.............................................for the Accused

......................................for the Respondent