REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Nakuru Criminal Case 93 of 2010 REPUBLIC…………………………………….…………………PROSECUTOR VERSUS JAMES NJUGUNA WANJIRU………………………………………..ACCUSED RULING At the close of the prosecution case, consisting only of the evidence of the Chief Barut Location, the brother of the deceased who identified the body of the deceased for the purpose of post mortem examination and the arresting officer, the question to be answered is whether that evidence constitutes a prima facie evidence to warrant the accused to be called to enter his defence. The accused having been charged that on 19th September, 2010, he murdered the deceased, it was the duty of the prosecution to establish at this stage that there is prima facie evidence linking the accused with the death of the deceased. The evidence of the chief can at best be described only as hearsay. He received a call that the body of the deceased had been seen at the scene. Later, he heard that there was a suspect who was being beaten by the mob. He went and rescued the accused person. He also called the police and the accused arrested by P.W.3. That evidence is far below the standard set by the cases of Republic V. Kipkering Arap Koske & Another (1949) 1 EACA 135 and Simeon Musoke V. Republic (1958) EA 715. No conviction can result should the accused elect not to call evidence in rebuttal. It must be noted that the State has been granted amply opportunity to call evidence but failed, even after the court had summoned the O.C.S., who assured the court that witnesses would be availed. Since September, 2010 when the accused person’s plea was taken, only three witnesses have testified. Although the accused person’s health contributed to this delay, he is nonetheless entitled to a speedy trial. For these reasons, the accused is acquitted. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 29th day of October, 2012. W. OUKO 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.