Jeremiah Kirimi Mutiria v Republic

2. He took plea on 18th December 2018 and denied the offence and the case went to full trial in which the Prosecution called 6 witnesses. 3. At the close of their case, the prosecution filed submissions on case to answer. The gist of their submission was that they had established the ingredients of murder being the unlawful death of the deceased; the malicious intention on the part of the accused; and the positive identification of the accused. 4. At this stage of the proceedings, I am not required to give a detailed analysis of my findings. It is sufficient the for me, upon consideration of evidence to enter a finding on whether or not the prosecution have established a prima facie case. 5. A prima facie case was explained by the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs Republic (1957) E.A 332, the Court held that:HCCR NO. 29 OF 2018 2

page 2 of 7

“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot argue that a prima facie 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 could 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 argue 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.” HCCR NO. 29 OF 2018 3

page 3 of 7

A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence… It may not be easy to define what is meant by 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 offered by the defence.” (See also Republic vs. Abdi Ibrahim Owl (2013) eKLR) 6. In analysing the evidence at this stage, I am not expected to give a detailed analysis and arrive at a firm finding on the guilt of the Accused. I agree with the caution in Republic vs Robert Zippora Nzilu (2020) eKLR, where Odunga J. (as he then was) stated that:- HCCR NO. 29 OF 2018 4

page 4 of 7

“That there definitive is a danger in making at this stage, findings especially where the Court finds that there is a case to answer is not farfetched and the reasons for not doing so are obvious. As was appreciated by Trevelyan and Chesoni, Wandera Mukando vs. JJ The in Festo Republic (1980) KLR 103: “We once more draw attention to the inadvisability of giving reasons for holding that an accused has a case to answer. It can prove embarrassing to the court and, in an extreme case, may require an appellate court to set aside an otherwise sound judgement. Where a submission of “no case” is rejected, the court should say no HCCR NO. 29 OF 2018 5

page 5 of 7

more than that it is. It is otherwise where the submission is upheld when reasons should be given; for then that is the end to the case or the count or counts concerned.” 7. I have analysed the evidence on record and considered the submission of the state. It is my finding that the state has established a prima facie case against the Accused to warrant him being placed on his defence. 8. The Accused is called upon to elect his mode of defence in accordance with Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Orders accordingly. Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Chuka this 26th day of May, 2026. .......................... HCCR NO. 29 OF 2018 6

page 6 of 7

R. LAGAT - KORIR JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of the Accused, Mr Wakoko for the Accused, Ms Rukunga for the State; Muriuki (Court Assistant) HCCR NO. 29 OF 2018 7

page 7 of 7