Republic v Moses (Criminal Case 10 of 2018) [2023] KEHC 1934 (KLR) (15 March 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 1934 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT EMBU CRIMINAL CASE 10 OF 2018 LM NJUGUNA, J MARCH 15, 2023 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND BENSON NJERU MOSES ............................................................................ ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person herein was charged with the ofience of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the ofience being that on December 31, 2014 at Gacaveri village, Gikiiro sub-location, Mbita location in Mbeere South sub-county within Embu County, murdered Philemone Ireri Mutemi. Upon arraignment in court, he pleaded not guilty and a plea of not guilty was entered. 2. The case proceeded for trial and wherein the prosecution called eight (8) witnesses in support of its case, after which it closed its case. 3. Under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75 Laws of Kenya), this court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling or a decision on whether an accused person has a case to answer or not. Under section 306(1), when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused person committed the ofience should, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty. 4. Under Section 306(2) on the other hand, when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is evidence that the accused person committed the ofience, the court should proceed to put the accused to her defence and whereby the accused is supposed to present evidence in his defence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2023/1934/eng@2023-03-15 1
page 1 of 2
5. As such, at this stage, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination as to whether the same presents a prima facie case that would warrant this court to call upon the accused person to give his defence. Under 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. [See Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332 at 334 and 335]. 6. However, it is trite that, where the court is not acquitting the accused person at the close of prosecutions’ case, there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer. Reasons should only be given where the submissions of a no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted. (See Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103). 7. I have considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution in this matter as required of this court and from the entirety of the evidence, it is my view that the prosecution has made up a prima facie case against the accused person. He therefore has a case to answer and is put on his defence. 8. It is so ordered. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023. L. NJUGUNA JUDGE ................................for the Accused ....................................for the State https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2023/1934/eng@2023-03-15 2
page 2 of 2