Republic v Chege & another (Criminal Case 21 of 2015) [2026] KEHC 9332 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9332 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MURANG'A CRIMINAL CASE 21 OF 2015 CW GITHUA, J JUNE 30, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND LABAN MUNGAI CHEGE .................................................................... 1ST ACCUSED MARTIN CHEGE NYANJORA ........................................................... 2ND ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused persons, Laban Mungai Chege and Martin Chege Nyanjora face a charge of murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars allege that on 8th June 2014 at about 19.00 hours at Kiawaihiga village in Gatanga SubCounty within Murang’a County, jointly with others not before the court, they murdered Anthony Njuguna Chege. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution called a total of six (6) witnesses. After the close of the prosecution case, both parties filed written submissions in which they articulated their respective positions regarding whether or not the prosecution had established a prima facie case to warrant placing the accused persons on their defence. 4. The prosecution through learned prosecution counsel Ms. Muriu submitted that the evidence presented to the court by the prosecution proved all essential ingredients of the ofience of murder and was thus sufficient to make out a prima facie case warranting each accused to be placed on his defence. 5. On her part, Ms. Kimani, learned Counsel for the accused persons in her submissions dated 8th December 2025 urged me to find that the prosecution failed to adduce either direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused persons to commission of the alleged ofience. In her view, the evidence https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9332/eng@2026-06-30 1
page 1 of 2
on record was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons and the accused persons were entitled to an acquittal at this stage. 6. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution case in its entirety. The question that falls for my determination at this stage is whether the prosecution had made out a prima facie case to warrant placing the accused persons on their defence. 7. A prima facie case has been defined in many authorities but the most comprehensive definition was given in the locus classicus case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt V R [1957] E.A. 332 in which 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 conviction”. This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hope 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 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.”[ Emphasis added] 6. In this case, I have thoroughly evaluated the evidence on record and conscious of the fact that I am not required at this stage to make an in-depth analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution or to make conclusive findings regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused persons as charged, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence on record establishes a prima facie case sufficient to justify placing the accused persons on their defence. It is therefore my finding that each accused person has a case to answer and is accordingly placed on his defence under Section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIVASHA THIS 30TH JUNE 2026 C.W GITHUA JUDGE In the Presence of: Both accused persons Ms. Kimani for the accused persons Ms. Chepkonga holding brief for Mr. Mwangi for the state Ms. Hannah Mbugua, Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9332/eng@2026-06-30 2
page 2 of 2