Republic v Omuk (Criminal Case E043 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7704 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7704 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT SIAYA CRIMINAL CASE E043 OF 2024 DK KEMEI, J JUNE 5, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND ADHOCH ALIA OMUK .............................................................................. ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused herein Stephen Odhiambo Alia Omuk has been charged with an offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on 31st day of August 2024, at around 0030 hours in Uradi village, Masumbi Sub Location, South East Alego Location in Siaya Sub County within Siaya County murdered one Tobias Anyango Oduor. 2. The accused denied the charge and that the prosecution called six (6) witnesses in support of its case. 3. The prosecution’s case is that on the material date, there was a funeral vigil within Uradi village at around midnight when a group of youth who included the deceased stormed the venue and that a clash arose between the deceased’s group and that of the accused herein wherein the decased sustained severe panga cut wounds while the accused also sustained panga cut wounds. That both the deceased and the accused were rushed to Siaya County Referral Hospital for treatment but the deceased however succumbed to the injuries while the accused survived. The accused was later charged with the offence while the other members of the public (mob) were not traced. It was the evidence of Gabriel Oduor Otieno (PW1) that as he rushed the deceased to hospital, he learnt that it was the accused herein who had assaulted the deceased. It was the evidence of Paul Ouma Ochieng (PW40 that he rushed the accused herein to hospital after he had been assaulted in a clash between two groups of young men and that he learnt that the deceased was the one who had attacked him but that he could not tell if the accused was also involved in the assault of the deceased. It was also the evidence of the area assistant chief Beatrice Akinyi Muthiga (PW5) that she received a report that the accused had been assaulted and that she directed someone to rush him to hospital and that she later learnt that another young man had also died due to assault. It was the evidence of the pathologist Dr Erick Okongo (PW3) that the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7704/eng@2026-06-05 1
page 1 of 2
deceased sustained a frontal parietal occipital fracture and that he formed the opinion that the cause of death was severe head injury. He produced the autopsy as exhibit one. It was the evidence of the investigating officer No. 25675 Pc Langat Dominic (PW6) that two rival groups of young men had clashed during a funeral vigil at Uradi village and that the accused’s group had repulsed the deceased’s group which led to the fatalities on the decased and injuries on the accused. That he established that the deceased had cut the accused with a panga and which angered the accused’s group who attacked the decased. That his investigations established the accused’s involvement in the death of the decased. 4. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the learned prosecutor opted to rely on the evidence on record while learned counsel for the defence opted to file submissions on the issue of whether a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution. 5. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the issue for determination is whether a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution so as to warrant the accused t be placed on his defence. A prima facie case is one where a reasonable tribunal directing its mind to the law and evidence placed before it can convict an accused person if no evidence is tendered by the defence to the contrary. What this means is that the evidence so far tendered must be sufficient to sustain a conviction against the accused were he to elect to remain silent in defence. See Bhat Vs R [1957] EA 332. 6. I have given due consideration to the evidence tendered at this stage of the proceedings as well as the submissions of defence counsel. I find that it is not in dispute that the accused herein had been one of the persons selected to offer security during the funeral vigil and that he and the deceased were in some rival groups of youth who had clashed at said funeral vigil at Uradi village and which led to the death of the deceased and the accused sustaining injuries as well. It is therefore clear that the accused was placed at the scene of crime and that he must now offer an explanation as to how the deceased met his death. 7. In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused herein to warrant him to be placed on his defence. Consequently, I find that the accused herein Stephen Odhiambo Adhoch Alias Omuk has a case to answer and is now called upon to elect to make his defence in accordance with the provisions of section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 D.KEMEI JUDGE In the presence of : Stephen Odhiambo Adhodi alias Omuk......................................Accused Ms Madialo ............................for Accused Soita ..........................for Prosecution M/s Maureen ................................Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7704/eng@2026-06-05 2
page 2 of 2