REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET CRIMINAL CASE NO. 59 OF 2011 REPUBLIC.............................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS LEONARD MUKUNZA HENRY..............................1ST ACCUSED SIMON KEMBOI KAINO.......................................2ND ACCUSED RULING 1. The two accused persons Leonard Mukunza Henry and Simon Kemboi Kaino are jointly charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. It is alleged that on the 1 st day of September 2011 at Sango village, Likuyani District within the Western Province, jointly with others not before the court, the accused persons murdered Moses Wekesa Soita. 3. Each of the accused persons denied the charges. In support of its case, the prosecution called a total of ten witnesses. At the close of the prosecution case, learned counsel for the accused persons Mr. Chepkwony chose to file written submissions under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code but learned prosecuting counsel Ms Oduor opted not to make any submissions at this stage. 4. I have carefully read and evaluated all the evidence on record alongside the written submissions filed by Mr. Chepkwony on the accused person’s behalf. Having done so, I am satisfied that a prima facie case as defined in Bhatt V Republic (1957) EA 332 at page 334 has been made out by the prosecution against each of the accused persons. In the premises, I find that each of the accused persons has a case to answer and is accordingly put on his defence under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is so ordered. C. W. GITHUA JUDGE DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 22nd day of March, 2017 In the presence of:Both accused persons Mr. Chepkwony for both accused persons Miss Karanja for the Republic Mr. Lobolia Court clerk
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.