Republic v Kihu Anthony Mbugu

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18 OF 2012 REPUBLIC..................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS KIHU ANTHONY MBUGU…………....………..ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused KIHU ANTHONY MBUGUA was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code the particulars of which were that on the night of 9th and 10th of March, 2012 at Kangemi Dagoreti Division within Nairobi County murdered ROBERT KIHU GANDU. 2. He pleaded not guilty to the said charges and to prove its case against the accused the prosecution called a total of ten (10) witnesses and at the close of the prosecution case the parties were called upon to make submissions as to whether the prosecution had made out a case to enable the court put the accused on his defence. SUBMISSIONS 3. On behalf of the prosecution it was submitted that death of the deceased was proved by the evidence of Dr. Njeru (PW8) and that the accused was positively identified and placed at the scene of crime and therefore prima facie had been established. On behalf of the accused it was submitted that he prosecution case is merely circumstantial and that no case to answer had been proved for which the case of REPUBLIC v MARTIN OLUOCH OKWAKO & 2 OTHERS (2016) eKLR was submitted. 4. What is required at this stage was stated by Justice J.B Ojwang ( as he then was) in the case of REPUBLIC v SAMWEL KARANJA KURIA CRIMINAL CASE NO. 130 OF 2004 Nairobi (2009) eKLR in the following terms:“The question at this stage is not whether or not the accused is guilty as charged but whether there is such cogent evidence of his connection with the circumstances in which the killing of the deceased occurred, that the concept of prima facie case dictates as a matter of law that an opportunity be created by this court for the accused to state his own case regarding the killing. The governing law on this point is well settled”……… In the Court of Appeal No. 77 of 2006 the Court of Appeal expressed that too detailed analysis of the evidence, at no case to answer stage is undesirable if the court is going to put the accused onto his defence as too much details in the trial court’s ruling could then compromise the

page 1 of 2