Republic v Muoki (Criminal Case E057 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 11732 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11732 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CRIMINAL CASE E057 OF 2022 AM MUTETI, J JULY 6, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND ROBERT KIOKO MUOKI .......................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person Robert Kioko Muoki was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars of the information were that on 17th August 2022 at Maternity Area within Kasarani Sub-county of Nairobi murdered Faith Cheplenting. 3. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution called a total of 7 witnesses in support of the murder information. 4. The deceased and the accused person were at the time of the death of the deceased co-habiting together and in the course of their stay, prosecution witnesses told the court that the accused person would occasionally quarrel with the deceased and assault her. 5. On the 17th August 2022, the accused person picked a quarrel with the deceased at about 7:30 pm. The accused was said to have been drunk and when the quarrel degenerated into a near fight neighbors of the accused person intervened and the two were cancelled to stop the quarrel and go into their house. 6. The accused person is said to have appeared drunk at the time but he obliged and went into his house with the deceased. The two locked themselves up in the house and during the night neighbors heard commotion in the accused person’s house which died out later. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11732/eng@2026-07-06 1
page 1 of 3
7. The following morning PW4 Joseph Makau testified that the accused person went to his house and asked him to help him take the deceased to the hospital and upon entering the accused person’s house he discovered that the deceased had already died. 8. PW4 dispatched his wife to go make a report to the police who later came and arrested the accused. Later post mortem was performed and the cause of death was determined to be as a result of head injury due to blunt forced trauma. 9. At the close of the prosecution’s case counsel for both parties agreed to file written submissions on a case to answer which this court has fully considered. 10. At this stage, the court is not required to determine whether the case against the accused person has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt but should simply satisfy itself that on a prima facie basis, the evidence adduced in support of the charge, is sufficient to require the accused person to be placed on his defence. 11. It should be such evidence as justify a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind on the evidence and the law to return a verdict of guilt if no plausible explanation is offered by the accused person. The evidence need not be watertight but should meet the test set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335, where 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 offered by the defence.” 12. A prima facie case in a murder trial, must be one where the ingredients of the offence as set out in the case of Anthony Ndegwa Ngari v Republic [2014] eKLR are disclosed; The ingredients are;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 13. In Republic v Abdi Ibrahim [2013] EKLR, the court defined a prima facie case as follows: “Prima facie” is a Latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8thEdition 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”. 14. The summary of the evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that the accuse person at the time he went into the house with deceased, the deceased person was in good health thus being the last person to have been with the deceased, direct and circumstantial evidence points at him as the person who was last seen with deceased and has facts within his special knowledge of what may have conspired leading to the death of the deceased. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11732/eng@2026-07-06 2
page 2 of 3
15. As a result, this court is satisfied that a prima facie has been made out against the accused requiring him to be placed on his defence in line with Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 16. Accordingly, the accused person is put to his defence and may therefore proceed to elect the type of defence he wishes to offer. 17. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. A. M. MUTETI JUDGE In the presence of: Court Assistant: Habiba Mogere for State Maigua for Accused https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11732/eng@2026-07-06 3
page 3 of 3