Republic v Njoroge (Criminal Case 14 of 2015) [2025] KEHC 19622 (KLR) (17 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19622 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MURANG'A CRIMINAL CASE 14 OF 2015 CW GITHUA, J DECEMBER 17, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................ STATE AND STEPHEN IRUNGU NJOROGE ................................................................. ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused, Stephen Irungu Njoroge was charged with the ofience of murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars were that on the night of 8th – 9th March 2015, at Maranjau village in Murang’a County, he murdered Kennedy Gitau Mwangi. 3. The court record shows that when he was arraigned in court on 13th April 2015, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial opened before Hon. Kimondo J on 29th October 2019 who heard a total of seven witnesses before he was transferred to another station. 4. I took over the proceedings on 26th April 2023 under Section 200(3) as read with Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (CPC) After understanding his rights under the aforesaid provisions, the accused elected to have the trial continue before me from where Hon. Kimondo J had stopped. I then proceeded to take the evidence of four additional witnesses before the prosecution closed its case. 5. After the close of the prosecution case, both parties filed written submissions in which they articulated their respective positions regarding whether or not the prosecution had established a prima facie case to warrant placing the accused on his defence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19622/eng@2025-12-17 1
page 1 of 2
6. A prima facie case has been defined in many authorities of this court but the Locus classicus case on the subject is the celebrated case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic [1957] EA 332 in which the court enumerated the type of evidence which was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The court expressed itself as follows; “ It may not be easy to define what is meant by a prima 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 ofiered by the defence….” 7. In his written submissions dated 13th October 2025 learned Counsel for the accused Mr. Kimwere urged me to find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was contradictory and disjointed and could not support a charge of murder; that the prosecution failed to avail crucial evidence since there was no eye witness to the murder. In his view, the evidence fell short of proving the case beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused was entitled to an acquittal at this stage. 8. The prosecution through learned prosecution counsel Ms. Muriu submitted that the evidence presented to the court by the prosecution proved all essential ingredients of the ofience of murder and was thus sufficient to make out a prima facie against the accused warranting him to be placed on his defence. 9. It is important to state at this juncture that in this ruling, this court is not required to make a determination on the guilt or innocence of the accused person as charged. This is because at this stage of the trial, the prosecution’s burden is limited to adducing credible evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused person and not to prove the charges against him beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. On my part, I have carefully evaluated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and although I agree with learned counsel Mr. Kimwere that no eye witness to the commission of the ofience was availed by the prosecution, I am satisfied that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused justifying his being placed on his defence. 11. Consequently, it is my finding that the accused has a case to answer and he is accordingly placed on his defence under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANGA THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. HON. C. W. GITHUA JUDGE In the presence of; Accused – present Mr. Kimwere for the Accused Ms Muriu for the State Ms Susan Waiganjo , Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19622/eng@2025-12-17 2
page 2 of 2