Case ID:185676

Republic v David Kithinji Njoka [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 9 of 2017

Parties:

Republic v David Kithinji Njoka

Date Delivered:

17 Nov 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Embu

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Lucy Mwihaki Njuguna

Citation:

Republic v David Kithinji Njoka [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Embu

Case Outcome:

Acquitted

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 EMBU

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 9 OF 2017

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

VERSUS

DAVID KITHINJI NJOKA...............................................ACCUSED

RULING

1.

The accused person was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence being that, on the 12

th

day of May, 2017 at around 6.00 p.m. at Kithunguriri Location, Embu North Sub County within Eastern Region murdered John Kinyua Njagi.

2.

The accused person was arraigned in court on 18.07.2017 and he pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and a plea of not guilty entered.

3.

The matter proceeded to trial and the prosecution called a total of Nine (9) witnesses after which the prosecution closed its case.

4.

This court has a duty to make a ruling upon the conclusion of the prosecution’s case on whether the accused person herein has a case to answer or not. When the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses have been concluded and the court has formed an opinion that there has not been presented evidence that the accused committed the offence should after hearing any arguments from either the prosecution or advocate of the accused person enter a finding of not guilty. (See

Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code

).

5.

On the other hand, should the court hold the opinion that there has been adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence, the court then should proceed to put the accused person on his defence. (See

section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

). At this point, this court’s role is to consider the evidence on record and make a determination whether a

prima facie

case has been established to warrant the accused person to be placed on his defence.

6.

Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that a

prima facie

case is established where the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient for the court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation is offered by the accused person. This was the court’s view in the case of

Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt –vs- R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335

).

7.

It is trite that, the reasons should only be given where the submission of no case to answer by the accused is upheld and the accused is to be acquitted. In the case of

Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103

the court held that there is no need for a reasoned ruling for a case to answer.

8.

This court has considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this matter and from its entirety; the prosecution has established a

prima facie

case against the accused person herein.

9.

I hereby order that he be placed on his defence.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021.

L. NJUGUNA

JUDGE

………………………………………………FOR THE ACCUSED

…………………………………………..FOR THE RESPONDENT