Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Republic v Nicholas Muturi Chiande

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 44 OF 2008 REPUBLIC................................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS NICHOLAS MUTURI CHIANDE.......................................... ACCUSED RULING The accused, NICHOLAS MUTURI CHIANDE, is on trial for the offence of Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is the prosecution case that on 2nd May 2008, at Kibera Laini Saba slums within Nairobi, the accused murdered MULE MULI. The prosecution has called eight (8) witnesses. Through the said witnesses, it has been proved that MULE MULI is deceased. It has also been shown that the cause of death was internal bleeding due to lacerations to the heart of the deceased. The pathologist attributed the lacerations to stab wounds that penetrated the chest of the deceased. The prosecution has also led evidence which appears, on a prima facie basis, to place the accused at the scene of crime, at the time when the offence was committed. It would appear that he was not only at the scene, but that he engaged in arguments with the deceased, prior to the deceased sustaining the fatal injuries. The evidence also suggests that immediately after the deceased had been fatally injured, the accused person was seen carrying the weapon which had probably been used to inflict the injury. In the event, the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused. I therefore find and hold that the accused has a case to answer. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi, this 9th day of May, 2012.

page 1 of 2

..................................... FRED A. OCHIENG JUDGE

page 2 of 2

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.