REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU CRIMINAL MURDER CASE NO. 62 OF 2016 REPUBLIC.........................................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS JOSEPH JUMA SIMIYU...................................................1 ST ACCUSED EMMANUEL SIMIYU NYONGESA...............................2NDACCUSED JOSEPH WANYONYI NYONGESA...............................3RD ACCUSED RULING Under Section 306(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code(Cap 75 Laws of Kenya) The prosecution called seven(7) witnesses to prove the case of murder against the three accused persons who are charged with the offence of murder of one Francis Njuguna on the 15th October 2016 at Nyakinywa village, Njoro Sub-County within Nakuru County. I have interrogated the evidence adduced by the witnesses. The three accused persons are placed at the scene of crime. Both the prosecution and the defence did not tender any submissions on the matter as to whether the prosecution had, by its evidence, established a prima facie case against the accused persons. Under Section 306(1) (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) if the court is satisfied that there is no sufficient evidence to call upon an accused person to answer to the charge, a finding of not guilty ought to be entered, but if such evidence is sufficient and establishes a prima facie case, then the accused is required to answer by way of unsworn or sworn evidence. Upon examination of the evidence, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established against the accused persons – Bhatt –vsRepublic (1957) IEA 332, to warrant them to be placed on their defence – under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is so ordered. Dated, delivered and signed at Nakuru this 26th Day of June 2019. ......................... J.N. MULWA 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.