Republic v Nyairo & 2 others (Criminal Case 5 of 2016) [2022] KEHC 321 (KLR) (5 May 2022) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 321 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL CASE 5 OF 2016 MM KASANGO, J MAY 5, 2022 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND REONALD NYAIRO .............................................................................. 1ST ACCUSED DAVID NJUGUNA MBUGUA .............................................................. 2ND ACCUSED ROSELYN KARAMBU .......................................................................... 3RD ACCUSED RULING 1. The three accused are facing the charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. They all pleaded not guilty. 2. The prosecution closed its case after calling 9 witnesses. This is therefore a Ruling on whether the accused have a case to answer. In considering this Ruling, I rely on the holding in the case Ronald Nyaga Kiura v Republic [2018] eKLR where the court stated:“ It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that a prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is ofiered by an accused person. This is well illustrated in the cited Court of Appeal case of Ramanlal Bhat v Republic [1957] EA 332. At that stage of the proceedings the trial court does not concern itself to the standard of proof required to convict which is normally beyond reasonable doubt. The weight of the evidence however must be such that it is sufficient for the trial court to place the accused to his defence.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2022/321/eng@2022-05-05 1
page 1 of 2
3. I have considered the prosecution’s evidence and the submission filed on behalf of the accused. At this stage, the court is not required to make a detailed analysis of the evidence. 4. It is sufficient to state that in my consideration of prosecution’s evidence, I find that all the three accused have a case to answer. All the three accused therefore are informed that they have a right to address the court as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are accordingly informed that they have a right to address the court either personally or by their advocate or to give evidence on their own behalf or to make unsworn statement and to call witnesses in their defence. 5. The accused are now called upon to make their election. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 5THDAY OF MAY, 2022. MARY KASANGO JUDGE Coram: Court Assistant : Mourice 1st Accused : Ronald Nyairo : Present For 1st accused : - Mr. Njuguna HB Ms. Omangala 2nd Accused : David Njuguna Mbugua: Present For 2nd Accused : Mr. Njuguna Kiarie 3rd Accused : Roselyn Karambu: Present For 3rd Accused: Mr. Njuguna Kiarie For DPP :- Mr. Kasyoka COURT RULING delivered virtually. MARY KASANGO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2022/321/eng@2022-05-05 2
page 2 of 2