Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case 1 of 2019) [2025] KEHC 19420 (KLR) (24 June 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19420 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL CASE 1 OF 2019 DO CHEPKWONY, J JUNE 24, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................ STATE AND JOHN KARANJA KAMAU ......................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person, John Karanja Kamau, is charged with the ofience of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the ofience are that:“ On the night of 10th and 11th February, 2012 at Gathiru Trading Centre, Gatundu South Sub-county within Kiambu County, the accused murdered Joseph Muchiri Kuria”. 2. The accused was arraigned in court on 15th January, 2019, whereby it was directed that he be assigned a pro bono counsel. Having been found fit to plead and assigned legal representation, the accused person was presented before court for plea taking and he pleaded “Not Guilty” to the ofience of Murder. 3. The matter then proceeded for hearing and in support of its case, the prosecution called a total of five (5) witnesses, namely:- being PW1 Beth Wanja Muchiri (wife of the deceased), PW2 Samuel Kuria Nguri (father of the deceased) , PW3 Philip Nguri Kuria (brother of the deceased), PW4 John Kamau ( brother of the deceased) and PW5 Margaret Wahu Maina (Government Analyst). 4. Upon the close of the prosecution’s case, the Court is now called upon to determine whether the accused person has a case to answer within the meaning of Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This determination turns on whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficient to warrant placing the accused on his defence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19420/eng@2025-06-24 1
page 1 of 3
5. The concept of a prima facie case was judicially settled and has been consistently applied. In the case of Republic v Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013]eKLR, the Court, drawing from Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, defined “prima facie” as meaning “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted,” while a “prima facie case” was defined as “the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.” In essence, this denotes the presentation of evidence which, unless rebutted or explained, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. 6. The classical and authoritative exposition of this principle is found in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, where the Court emphatically held that a “prima facie case is not made out merely because there is some evidence on record”. The Court stated that the legal burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and that a prima facie case must be one upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict if the accused chose to remain silent. The Court went on to caution that a mere scintilla of evidence or evidence that is discredited or manifestly unreliable cannot suffice to place an accused person on his defence. 7. In determining whether an accused has a case to answer, the Court must therefore exercise restraint and avoid making definitive findings on credibility or weight of evidence, particularly where the accused is to be placed on his defence. This position was reaffirmed in the case of Republic v Stephen Chomba Kamau [2021] eKLR, which cited with approval in the case of Republic v Samuel Karanja Kiria [2009] eKLR, where Ojwang J. (as he then was) observed that at the no-case-to-answer stage, the Court is not concerned with whether the accused is guilty as charged, but it is whether there exists cogent evidence linking the accused to the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. The Court of Appeal has further cautioned that an overly detailed analysis of evidence at this stage is undesirable, as it risks compromising the integrity and quality of the defence to be mounted. 8. Guided by the foregoing principles, this Court has carefully considered the totality of the prosecution’s evidence on record. While refraining from a detailed examination of each witness’s testimony and so as not to prejudice the defence case, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has adduced evidence which, if left unanswered or unexplained, could lead a reasonable tribunal to find the accused guilty and convict him. 9. The evidence on record discloses material facts touching on the death of the deceased, the circumstances under which the death occurred, and the alleged involvement of the accused person. At this stage, the Court is not required to determine the truthfulness or conclusiveness of that evidence, but only to ascertain whether it meets the threshold of a prima facie case. 10. In the circumstances, and while applying the legal test discussed above, the Court finds that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused person. The accused is therefore found to have a case to answer and is hereby placed on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE ,2025. D. O. CHEPKWONY JUDGE In the presence of: M/S Ndeda counsel for the State https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19420/eng@2025-06-24 2
page 2 of 3
Mr. Munene counsel for accused Accused – present Court Assistant - Kinyua https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19420/eng@2025-06-24 3
page 3 of 3