REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 30 OF 2010 REPUBLIC VERSUS JOSEPH WAMBUA MUTUA ALIAS RASTA ….…… ACCUSED RULING 1. Joseph Wambua Mutua, alias Rasta is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. Particulars of the offence are that on the 1st day of May 2010 at Ndithini village, Kiteta Location, within Mbooni East District of the Eastern Province murdered Mutinda Wambua. 2. At the close of the prosecution’s case evidence was adduced by PW4 Stephen Mutiso who was woken up at 11.30 p.m. by noises emanating from the accused’s house. He went there to find the accused arguing with the deceased. He witnessed the accused hit the deceased with a walking stick on the head which made him unconscious. Consequently he died. The cause of death per the postmortem carried out was intracerebral haemorrage due to a fractured skull as a result of an assault. 3. It was submitted by the defence counsel that evidence on record did not establish a case of murder. The defence had offered to plead to a lesser charge of manslaughter. 4. A consideration of evidence adduced establishes a prima facie case as laid down in the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt versus Republic (1957) EA 322 where it was stated that:“…it may not be easy to describe what it 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.” 5. In the premises there is evidence requiring the accused to defend himself in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. ……………………………………… L. MUTENDE JUDGE Dated and delivered at Machakos this 17th day of December 2013. ……………………………………… L. MUTENDE 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.