Republic v Kitindio (Criminal Case 7 of 2015) [2025] KEHC 14995 (KLR) (23 July 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 14995 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE 7 OF 2015 NIO ADAGI, J JULY 23, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ PROSECUTOR AND MUTHENGI KITINDIO ............................................................................. ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person namely Muthengi Kitindio is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 2nd day of January 2015, at Kangonde village, Masinga Sub-County within Machakos County, murdered Geoffrey Mule Muli. 2. The accused denied the charge and the case proceeded for hearing. The Prosecution called fifteen (15) witnesses in a bid to prove their case. Both the prosecution and the accused person’s counsel relied on the evidence on record and did not file any submissions. 3. At the close of the prosecution case, the trial court must consider the evidence so far tendered by the prosecution to determine whether a prima facie case has been established in order to call upon the accused person to defend himself. If no such case has been made out at this stage, then the trial court must acquit the accused person as provided for under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. What constitutes a prima facie case is clearly stated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335, where the court stated as follows: “ Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one "which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction." This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14995/eng@2025-07-23 1
page 1 of 2
gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is "some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused person on his defence". A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence......It may not be easy to define what is meant by a "prima facie case", but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence" 5. With the above authority in mind, I have carefully reviewed the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and I do find the same has established a prima facie case against the accused person. Accordingly, the accused person is put on his defence. 6. This case shall therefore proceed for defence hearing. RULING WRITTEN DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 23RD JULY 2025 NOEL I. ADAGI JUDGE DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 23RD JULY 2025 In the presence of : Mr. Muema …....... for Accused Ms. Agatha .............for State Milly........ Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14995/eng@2025-07-23 2
page 2 of 2