Case ID:181627

Republic v Benjamin Kithinji & 2 others [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 63 of 2015

Parties:

Republic v Benjamin Kithinji, Benard Mutura & Cosmas Kirimi

Date Delivered:

17 Sep 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Meru

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Edward Muthoga Muriithi

Citation:

Republic v Benjamin Kithinji & 2 others [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Meru

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 63 OF 2015

REPUBLIC.........................................PROSECUTION

VERSUS

BENJAMIN KITHINJI.......................1

ST

ACCUSED

BENARD MUTURA...........................2

ND

ACCUSED

COSMAS KIRIMI...............................3

RD

ACCUSED

RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER

1. Benjamin Kithinji, Bernard Mutura and Cosmas Kirimi are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The prosecution’s case is that on 21

st

August 2015, at Kiegoi Location in Igembe South Sub-County within Meru County, the accused persons jointly murdered Joses Kaiyongi Kachumbika.

2. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to trial, the prosecution calling a total of 8 witnesses to prove the charge.

3.

The court has considered as required under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code whether there is the evidence that the accused persons or any of the accused persons committed the offence. At this stage, however, the court is required to be satisfied only that a

prima facie

case exists. As held in

Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R

(1957) EA 332, 335

a

prima facie

case is

“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.”

4. The Court has considered the evidence presented herein by the Prosecution, but notes that at this stage, it is not required to give elaborate reasons for its decision. The importance of a Court refraining from giving reasons for its decision at the stage of case to answer was discussed in the High Court case of

Kibera Karimi v. R

(1979) KLR 36

where Trevelyan & Todd JJ held as follows: -

“When the Prosecution case was closed, the defence submitted that there was no case for the appellant to answer, which submission was rejected in a detailed ruling, a practice which should not, at all events, generally, be followed as Roskill LJ pointed out in R Vs Falconer-Atlee (1974) 58 Cr App Rep 348, 356 in relation to a jury case:

If he was going to leave the case to the jury, he should have left it saying no more than that there was evidence to go to the jury…

Roskill L J thought that in the circumstances of the case the trial judge had been unwise, as he put it, because in giving his reasons, he expressed a view, albeit only a tentative view on the facts.”

5. Consequently, the accused shall be put on their defence in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and their rights thereunder shall be explained to them.

Order accordingly.

DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 17

TH

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021.

EDWARD M. MURIITHI

JUDGE

Appearances

Ms B. Nandwa Prosecution Counsel for the State

Mr. E. Kimathi Advocate for the 1

st

and 2

nd

accused persons

Ms Ntarangwi for the 3

rd

accused person.