Republic v Muasya (Criminal Case E010 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 6265 (KLR) (27 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6265 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE E010 OF 2020 RC RUTTO, J APRIL 27, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND SAMUEL MUE MUASYA ............................................................................. ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused herein was charged with the ofience of murder contrary to section 203 as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the ofience are that on 31st March 2020 at Kyumbi Trading in Athi River Sub-County within Machakos County jointly with others not before court murdered Michelle Meli. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded for hearing with the prosecution calling a total of six witnesses and closed its case and the case proceeded for determination on whether the accused has a case to answer. 3. The accused filed its submissions. He summarized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and stated that no exhibits were produced linking the accused to the ofience. Further that the officer who allegedly examined the call logs never attended court and the prosecution closed their case. They set out three issues for determination namely; whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case; whether the inconsistencies should be interpreted in favour of accused person and whether accused should be placed in his defence. 4. The accused made reference to the case of Republic vs Abdi Ibrahim Owi [2013] eKLR and Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt Vs R [1957] E.A 332 to urge the court to find that the totality of the evidence adduced, no prima facie case has been made by the prosecution. They prayed that the accused be discharged accordingly. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6265/eng@2026-04-27 1
page 1 of 2
5. Having considered the totality of the evidence of the 6 prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced in the court, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person. 6. At this juncture I will reserve my reasons for the finding. I am guided by the decision in Festo Wandera Mukando versus Republic 1980 (KLR) 103 and Republic versus Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opundo (2022) eKLR which cautioned that; it is inadvisable for the trial court to give reasons as to why an accused person is placed on his defence. 7. I therefore will remain cautious not to make any definitive findings at this stage by declining to provide reasons, even as I conclude that the accused has a case to answer. Accordingly, the accused person is placed on his defence. 8. The matter will be mentioned on 18th May 2026 for directions under Section 306(2) of the CPC. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 RHODA RUTTO JUDGE In the presence of; …………………………………ODPP ………………………………….Accused Selina Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6265/eng@2026-04-27 2
page 2 of 2