Republic v Emma Wanjiru Wanjiku & 3 others

presumption”. To digest this further, in simple terms, it means the establishment of a rebuttal presumption that an accused person is guilty of the ofience he/she is charged with. 3. In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] EA 332 at 334 and 335, 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 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 on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence…It is 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 ofiered by the defence.” 4. The question that this court has to deal with and answer at this stage is therefore, is whether based on the evidence before this Court, the Court after properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence may, as opposed to will, convict if the accused chose to give no evidence. It was therefore held in Ronald Nyaga Kiura vs. Republic [2018] eKLR wherein paragraph 22 it is stated as follows: “ It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is ofiered by an accused person. 5. I have considered the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution. PW1 placed all the accused at the scene of the incident and stated that they all participated in assaulting him and his deceased, who was his younger brother. He managed to escape and went and sought help. When they came back, they found the deceased lying on the road and he was rushed to Githunguri sub county hospital and later transferred to Kiambu level 5 hospital, where he passed on the following day in the evening. He further confirmed that three other culprits who were involved in the assault were not arrested, though he would normally see them in the village. 6. PW2 the deceased mother also confirmed rushing to hospital to see her son and the fact that he died the following day at Kiambu level 5 hospital. PW3 also confirmed that he was assigned to investigate this case and upon visiting the scene found that the deceased had been subject to mob justice. He gathered information from members of the public, and traced one “Munga” who was initially subjected to mob justice, and he did inform him that the accused persons were part of the team that assaulted him and the deceased and that they were patrons at the 1st accused pub. 7. Further investigations had revealed that the said “Munga” was suspected of having stolen a phone of a patron of the 1st accused pub and that she had lead a group to look for him in order to recover the said phone. While taking the said “Munge” to the police station, the two brothers had attempted to intervene to rescue the said “Munga” and that is how they ended up on the receiving end of the said https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6888/eng@2026-05-18 2

page 2 of 3

group of persons. Based on the said information he arrested the accused persons and charged them with the ofience before court. 8. PW4, and PW5 also testified to corroborate the evidence of PW1 and PW3, while PW6 the pathologist confirmed that the deceased died as a result of head injury caused by blunt force trauma consistent with physical assault.I am satisfied that the prosecution has established a prima facie case to find that the all the accused has a case to answer. This does not imply that the said evidence on record meets the threshold for convicting the said accused, but it is sufficient to call them to give their side of the story before the court can consider all the evidence in totality at the end of the trial. 9. I accordingly place all the accused persons on their defence. 10. It is so ordered. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 18th DAY OF MAY, 2026. FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL JUDGE DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2026. In the presence of: …………………………. Accused Person ……………………………. For ODPP ……………………………..Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6888/eng@2026-05-18 3

page 3 of 3