Republic v Jegugu & another (Criminal Case E010 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9025 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9025 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT BUSIA CRIMINAL CASE E010 OF 2024 SM MOHOCHI, J JUNE 25, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND RISPAR JEGUGU .................................................................................... 1ST ACCUSED DAVIS OKINO KAMLALA .................................................................. 2ND ACCUSED SENTENCE 1. The accused persons herein, Rispar Jegugu and Davis Okino Kamlala stands charged with the ofience of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on the 19th October 2024 at Makwara (B) village, Lugongo Sub-Location, Marachi East Location Butula Sub-County within Busia County murdered Christopher Olupo Kamlala 2. The Accused’s pleaded not guilty to the ofience and the prosecution called Four (4) witnesses in support of its case. 3. The issue before this Court at this stage is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficient to warrant placing the accused on his defence as provided under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In Republic v Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013] KEHC 2122 (KLR) as follows:-_ “ Prima facie” is a Latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition as “Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. “Prima facie case” is defined by the same dictionary as “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable 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. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9025/eng@2026-06-25 1
page 1 of 3
In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 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.” 5. The test is therefore settled in law that a prima facie case is one in which if the accused elected to remain silent, the Court could convict on the evidence presented. It is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable Court properly directing itself would ideally base it to convict. 6. In Republic v Alex Musau Jimmy [2022] KEHC (KLR) where the Court stated as follows:“ …However, this is not the stage at which the court minutely examines evidence and makes a conclusive determination as to whether the accused stands convicted or not. In my view, though at the end of the trial, the evidence as presented by the prosecution may fall short of convicting the accused with the ofience charged, where the same may warrant a conviction on a lesser ofience, the Court ought not to acquit the accused or proceed to convict him of a lesser ofience without hearing him. The evidence of the accused may well exonerate him even from the conviction on the lesser ofience hence it would be prudent to hear the accused before making a conclusive determination.” 7. Without delving into detail of the testimonies, the fact of death is not in question as forensic medical evidence has confirmed the same. The medical evidence confirms the cause of death as severe head injury, leading to slim-crance hemorrhage due to head trauma. The testimony of PW2 places the 1st accused at the scene at the time of the ofience. PW3 and PW4 testified implicating both accused persons. 8. Without further delving on the intricacies of the evidence adduced, the chain of evidence though not conclusive at this stage, is sufficient to require an answer from the accused. 9. The Court is mindful that criminal trials are anchored in constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and due process. Placing the accused on his defence is not a finding of guilt but a procedural step ensuring that the accused is afiorded the opportunity to respond to the case against him before a final determination is made. 10. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution has established the 1st and 2nd accused have a case to answer under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is hereby placed on his defence. It is so ordered. SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT BUSIA* ON THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9025/eng@2026-06-25 2
page 2 of 3
MOHOCHI S. M. PRESIDING JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9025/eng@2026-06-25 3
page 3 of 3