REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA Criminal Case 28 & 40 of 2004 REPUBLIC.......................................................................................................PROSECUTOR VS FAUSTINE ETYANG Alias EKISA........................................................................1ST ACCUSED GEOFREY EKISA KABURO..................................................................................2ND ACCUSED RULING The accused persons herein, Faustine Etyang alias Ekisa and Geofrey Ekisa kaburo are before this Court duly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read together with Section 204 of the Penal code. The particulars of the offence are that on the 5th day of May 2003 at Mongodewa Village, Moding Location in Teso District within Western Province, jointly murdered Benjamin Emojong. The prosecution tendered the evidence of 10 witnesses in support of the charge. I have anxiously and carefully considered the evidence presented by the 10 prosecution witnesses. I am satisfied that the evidence incriminate both the accused persons as the people who committed the offence now facing them. They are consequently placed on their defence. It is now upon each of the accused persons to state whether they intend to summon witnesses and whether or not they would testify in person and if so whether they would give sworn or unsworn testimony. Dated and delivered this 30th day of January 2006 J. K. SERGON JUDGE In the presence of Mr. Aoga for the accused. In the absence of the learned Principal State Counsel. MR OYAGIO: The accused persons shall give sworn evidence without calling witnesses. We pray for a date. COURT: This case is fixed for mention on 22.2.2006 for purposes of fixing a hearing date. The assessors be paid today’s allowances. J. K. SERGON JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.