Republic/State v Nzenge (Criminal Case 23 of 2019) [2025] KEHC 19585 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19585 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE 23 OF 2019 EN MAINA, J OCTOBER 3, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC/STATE ............................................................................. PROSECUTION AND SCHOLASTICA KAWERA NZENGE ........................................................ ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars of the offence are that on 11th July 2019 at Syokimau area in Mlolongo Township Athi River Sub-County within Machakos County, the accused person murdered James Kinyua Mutegi. 3. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge whereupon the prosecution called ten(10) witnesses in an effort to prove its case 4. The sum total of the evidence of the ten prosecution witnesses is that on the material day the deceased went to the hotel where the accused was working demanding for kshs 50 which he had given to the accused. An altercation ensued between them and they started fighting. The deceased kept pricking the accused with his finger on her forehead and this saw the accused threaten to stab him with a knife. The accused then stabbed the deceased on his stomach. The deceased was rushed to Shalom hospital where he passed on that night. 5. According to PW2, he was called by a colleague informing him that the deceased had been stabbed and he rushed to the scene and found the deceased groaning in pain with his intestines out. He inquired from him what had happened and he claimed that the accused had stabbed him. He ordered the accused to board his vehicle and also to hand over the knife that she used to stab him. He handed over the knife to the Police officer from Mlolongo police station. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19585/eng@2025-10-03 1
page 1 of 3
6. PW5 testified that she was called by the OCS and informed of an incident that occurred at Mastermind Tobacco limited and sent to go see what transpired. On arriving at the scene she found that the deceased had been rushed to hospital, she proceeded to Shalom hospital where she found the accused had been admitted and had an open wound on the stomach. She interrogated him and he stated that he had gone to the hotel to eat and asked the accused about the kshs 50 which he had bought her airtime on the previous day. They then started quarreled and the accused took a knife and stabbed him on the stomach. 7. According to PW5 the accused was arrested by the security officers from Mastermind who also gave her the knife with blood which they took from the scene. The deceased died while being treated 8. Upon conclusion of investigations, the accused person was charged with this offence. As part of its evidence the prosecution produced a post mortem report to the effect that the deceased died and that death was as a result of excessive blood loss due to penetrating sharp object trauma to the abdomen. 9. After the close of the prosecution’s case, learned Counsel for the prosecution and the accused persons agreed to reduce their arguments, on whether or not the accused persons have a case to answer into writing. 10. Ms Makena submitted that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to warrant this court to put the accused person on her defence. She submitted that the testimony of PW1 placed the accused at the scene of the crime. That the deceased also made a dying declaration to PW2 that the accused was the one who had stabbed him. She contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She urged this court to place the accused persons on their defence. 11. At this stage, the point for determination is whether or not the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficiently for the accused persons to be put on their defence. 12. In the case of Bhatt v Republic [1957] EA 332 it was held that a prima facie case “is 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.” 13. The ingredients of the offence of murder are the death of the deceased, the cause of that death, malice aforethought and the identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the offence. The offence may be proved through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. 14. In this case, the death of the deceased and the cause of that death are not in doubt as there is evidence by PW1 and other witnesses that the deceased in fact died and that he died as a result of injuries sustained from being stabbed in his stomach by the accused. The death and cause of death are corroborated by the post-mortem report. 15. Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is my finding that there is direct evidence to connect the accused person with this offence. 16. Upon considering the evidence as a whole this court is satisfied that the accused person may have committed the offence. The evidence of Pw1 & Pw2 coupled with the other witnesses confirms that the deceased died from an unlawful act and places the Accused person at the scene and time of incident and the circumstances outlined target the Accused person is sufficient to warrant the Accused person to be placed on her defense. 17. The law requires the accused persons enters her defence as provided in section 306(2) of the Criminal procedure Code. Orders accordingly. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19585/eng@2025-10-03 2
page 2 of 3
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. E.N. MAINA JUDGE In The Presence Of Ms Nyauncho for the state Ms Kavita for the accused The accused person present at Machakos prison Geoffrey – Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19585/eng@2025-10-03 3
page 3 of 3