Republic v Borora alias Isso (Criminal Case E078 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 11613 (KLR) (Crim) (21 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11613 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE E078 OF 2022 AM MUTETI, J JULY 21, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND GEOFFREY ANGWENYI BORORA ALIAS ISSO .................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person in this matter was charged with the ofience of Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars are that on 18th October 2022 at around 03.00hours along Park- road Ngara in Starehe Subcounty, within Nairobi County he murdered one Leonard Ngugi Njeri. 3. The prosecution 6 witnesses in support of the murder information. 4. The prosecution closed its case on 22nd April 2026 and subsequently both parties were to file their submissions on case to answer. 5. The court reserved the matter for a ruling under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. The prosecution’s submissions are on record and even though the defense had indicated on 22nd May 2026 that they too had filed their submissions, upon checking on the Case Tracking System, the court was unable to find the same. 7. However, the court at this stage is not required to determine the guilt of an accused person but is required to establish whether the evidence on record establishes a prima facie case to require the accused person to be placed on his defense. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11613/eng@2026-07-21 1
page 1 of 3
8. In Republic v Abdi Ibrahim [2013] EKLR, a prima facie case was defined 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”. 9. 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.” 10. The prosecution in this matter was able to establish that the deceased died following an assault that was visited upon him and his friends by the accused person in this matter. 11. Pw6 was in the company of the deceased when the incident happened and he was able to identify the accused as the assailant and the accused was well known to him before the incident so that the evidence connecting the accused to the assault on the deceased was evidence of recognition as opposed to identification. 12. Pw4 Dr. Susan Aketch attributed the death of the deceased to the injuries he sustained during the attack and pw6 was able to vividly narrate the nature of injuries that were infiicted upon the deceased by the accused person. 13. The prosecution in a case of murder is required to establish the ingredients of murder as set out in the case of Anthony Ndegwa Ngari v Republic [2014] eKLR as follows; i. The fact of death. ii. The fact that the deceased’s death was caused by an unlawful act or omission. iii. That the accused committed the unlawful act which caused the death of the deceased; and iv. That the accused had malice aforethought. 14. The totality of the evidence tendered in this matter leaves this court with no doubt that the prosecution has on a prima facie basis established all the ingredients above as the attack was premeditated and completely unprovoked. 15. This court therefore finds that the accused person has a case to answer. 16. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026. A. M. MUTETI JUDGE In the presence of: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11613/eng@2026-07-21 2
page 2 of 3
Court Assistant: Habiba Naulikha for the State Muchiri for Accused Accused: Present https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11613/eng@2026-07-21 3
page 3 of 3