Republic v Kamui (Criminal Case E005 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 7549 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7549 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MAKUENI CRIMINAL CASE E005 OF 2022 JN ONYIEGO, J MAY 29, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ PROSECUTOR AND JOSEPH MUSYOKA KAMUI ...................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The Accused Person herein is charged with the ofience of Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the ofience are that, on the 18th day of April 2022 at Makindu Township, Makindu Location of Makindu Sub-county within Makindu County he unlawfully murdered Susan Mukonyo Kamui. 2. Having denied the charge, the case proceeded to full trial with the prosecution adducing evidence from 7 witnesses in its endeavour to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As such, at this stage, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination as to whether the same presents a prima facie case that would warrant this court to call upon the accused persons to give their defence pursuant to Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Under 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. [See Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335]. 4. Similar position was held in the case of Republic V Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013] eKLR and Ronald Nyaga Kiura V Republic (2018) eKLR]. 5. However, it is trite that, where the court is not acquitting the accused person at the close of prosecution’s case, there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer. Reasons should only be https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7549/eng@2026-05-29 1
page 1 of 2
given where the submission of a no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted. [See Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103]. 6. Therefore, at the close of the prosecution’s case, it is the duty of the trial court to examine and assess the evidence tendered by the prosecution so as to establish whether the elements of a prima facie case are in existence and if so, the accused will be invited to give his defence either on oath or unsworn or he may even elect to exercise his constitutional right of keeping silent. In the event he is called upon to state his defence as provided under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, besides adducing evidence by himself, /herself, he/she can also call witnesses to rebut the prosecution’s case. 7. Thus, a review of the prosecution’s direct and circumstantial evidence leading to the arrest of the accused Person coupled with un explained blood stained clothes accused was found wearing at the point of arrest and further confining myself to the live issues relevant to the making of the decision under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established to place the accused person on his defence. 8. He is consequently informed of his rights under Section 211 of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, he is at liberty to make sworn testimony in which case he will be subjected to cross examination by the prosecution or; make unsworn testimony in which he will not be subject to cross examination and lastly; he can opt to keep quiet. In either option, he shall be at liberty to call witnesses. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 ….……………………. J. N. ONYIEGO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7549/eng@2026-05-29 2
page 2 of 2