Case ID:67989

Republic v John Kahindi Karisa [2014] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 24 of 2010

Parties:

Republic v John Kahindi Karisa

Date Delivered:

03 Dec 2014

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Mombasa

Case Action:

Judgment

Judge(s):

Maureen Akinyi Odero

Citation:

Republic v John Kahindi Karisa [2014] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Mombasa

Case Outcome:

Accused 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 MOMBASA

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 OF 2010

REPUBLIC……………………………….….………..……PROSECUTION

VERSUS

JOHN KAHINDI KARISA…………………….………………..…ACCUSED

JUDGMENT

The accused

JOHN KAHINDI KARISA

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 were that:

“On the night of 6

th

and 7

th

day of September, 2010 at Shanzu Township in Kisauni District within Coast Province, jointly with others not before court murdered

SHAKILA MWAJUMA

.”

The accused entered a plea of

‘Not Guilty’

to the charge. His trial commenced on 29

th

February, 2012 before

HON. LADY JUSTICE GRACE NZIOKA

who heard the first four (4) witnesses. When the Hon. Judge became unavailable to continue with the case I did hear the last witness.

MR. TARUS

Advocate appeared for the accused. The prosecution was led by

MS. MACHARIA

learned state counsel. The prosecution closed its case on 23

rd

September, 2014. The court must now decide whether on the basis of the evidence adduced a

prima facie

case has been established sufficient to warrant placing the accused onto his defence.

At the outset I wish to state that this hearing has amounted to nothing but a monumental waste of judicial time and energy. The prosecution made absolutely no effort to prove the charge against the accused. Not a single one of the five witnesses called to the stand made any link between the accused and the deceased person.

PW1 BORA AMISI KOBO

and

PW2 HAMISI KINGI

only talked of having hired out a handcart to a man named

“Kalulu Munyoki”

on 6

th

September, 2010 ostensibly for use to ferry his household goods. The said

‘Munyoki’

returned the handcart the following day. Upon return the handcart was found to have bloodstains. Nevertheless

PW1

proceeded to hire out the same handcart to a second man on 7

th

September, 2010. Later their employer known as ‘

Nyundo Mbenza’

who did not testify in court was arrested by police in possession of the handcart.

PW1

and

PW2

merely spoke of having heard ‘

talk and rumours’

that the handcart was used to ferry a dead woman. No evidence is adduced to show if this

‘rumour’

was indeed true. No evidence is adduced to show that it was the deceased who was ferried in that handcart and more importantly no evidence is adduced to link the accused to the handcart or to the alleged hirer

‘Munyoki’

. The alleged handcart was not even produced in court as an exhibit.

PW3 GERRISON OWINO

was an employee of Texas Security Alarms. He testified about his recovery of the body of a half-naked dead woman during his mobile patrols near Shanzu saga stage on the night of 6

th

/7

th

September, 2010. He has no idea who the deceased was, who killed her or who took the body to Shanzu.

PW3

did not know the accused at all.

PW4 DR. K. N. MANDALYA

was the pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. He opined from his examination that the cause of death was

‘haemothoraic bleeding due to multiple injury to the chest.’

PW4

filled and signed the post mortem report which was produced in court as an exhibit

Pexb1

.

The final witness called by the prosecution would have been comical if it did not represent a worrying example of ineptitude and laxity in this matter.

PW5 CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER MAGAIWA

basically had nothing to tell the court concerning this case. He did not investigate the case. All he can offer is that he worked in the same office as the late

PC Cheboi

who was the investigating officer and saw him investigate the case. It is highly unlikely that the mere fact of having worked in the same office as the investigating officer qualifies

PW5

to provide any useful information to the court. The reason why he was summoned to court remains a mystery. It is not as if he was looking over the shoulder of his colleague and can tell the contents of the investigation file.

PW5

names

‘Inspector Odhiambo’

as the officer who took over the case from Cheboi. The said Inspector Odhiambo was never called to testify despite the court having allowed the state several adjournments to avail their witnesses. Once again I can only state that this case was a total waste of the court’s time. Before a prosecution is mounted the state must ensure that it has all its ducks in a row. No single witness mentioned the accused in his/her evidence. No link is shown to exist between the accused and the deceased. There is not even a suggestion that the accused could have played a role in the murder of the deceased. I find that there is no prima facie evidence against this accused. I enter a verdict of

‘Not Guilty’

and I acquit the accused of the charge of murder. Accused is to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

Dated and Delivered in Mombasa this 3

rd

day of December, 2014.

M. ODERO

JUDGE