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

Republic v Samuel Kilele Musembi & 1 other

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAJIADO CRIMINAL CASE NO.26 OF 2015 REPUBLIC.................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS SAMUEL KILELE MUSEMBI....................1ST ACCUSED BONIFACE MAKAU PETER.....................2ND ACCUSED RULING The two accused persons are charged before this court with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on the night of 28 th and 29th day of September, 2014 at Kimana Oloile village the accused persons murdered Namunyak Meele. In order to proof the offence of murder the prosecution called a total of thirteen witnesses. At the close of prosecution case the court is mandated by law under section 306 (1) to make a finding on a no case to answer. I have evaluated the evidence as placed before this court which included the medical evidence, the government analyst, the scenes of crime officer, the investigating officer and the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8 who were acquainted with the deceased person. From the evidence I am satisfied that the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to warrant each of the accused to be placed on his defence. I reserve the reasons at this stage. Section 306 (2) of the CPC read and explained to each of the accused person who elects to state as follows: Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kajiado on 30/1/2017. ………………. R. NYAKUNDI JUDGE Representation: Accused persons present Mr. Sekento for the 1st accused person Mr. Morara for the 2nd accused person Mr. Alex Akula for Director of Public Prosecutions Mr. Mateli Court Assistant

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.