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

Republic v James Wainaina Kamau

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT GARSEN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 01 OF 2017 REPUBLIC.................................................PROSECUTION VERSUS JAMES WAINAINA KAMAU..........................ACCUSED Coram: Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi Mr. Mwangi for the state Mr. Gekanana advocate for the accused person RULING The accused person James Wainaina Kamau was indicted with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 and 204 of the Penal Code. From the brief history, its alleged that on 15.6.2015, at Baharini village in Lamu West, the accused murdered John Kiritu Wainaina. Accused being represented by Mr. Gekanana advocate pleaded not guilty to the charge. While Mr. Mwangi, prosecution counsel appeared for the state. In support of the charge, the prosecution summoned attendance of six (6) witnesses to proof the following elements: (1). The deceased is dead. (2). That the cause of death was unlawful. (3). That in causing death the perpetrators had malice aforethought. (4). That the accused person participated in the murder of the deceased. At the close of the prosecution case, the following statutory provisions under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code became relevant on review of the evidence of the seven (7) witnesses I am satisfied that in consonant with the principles in R. T. Bhatt v R {1957} EA the prosecution has discharged the burden of a primafacie case. As a matter of Law and fact I call upon the accused person to state his defence. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT GARSEN THIS 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 ........................... R. NYAKUNDI JUDGE In the presence of: 1. The Accused person 2. Mr. Mwangi for DPP

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.