1. Having considered the evidence of the seven (7) prosecution witnesses, the exhibits produced and the record in its entirety, I find that a prima facie case has been established against both accused persons and they are hereby placed on their defence.
2. The authorities of Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103 and Republic v Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opudo [2022] eKLR provide the jurisprudence that it is inadvisable for the court to give the reasons as to why an accused person is placed on his defence. I will therefore not give the reasons for my findings above.
3. In Festo Wandera Mukando, the Court stated thus:
“...we draw attention to the inadvisability of giving reasons for holding that an accused has a case to answer. It can prove embarrassing to the court and, in an extreme case, may require an appellate court to set aside an otherwise sound judgment. Where a submission of “no case” to answer is rejected, the court should say no more than that it is. It is otherwise where the submission is upheld when reasons should be given; for then that is the end to the case or the count or counts concerned.” (Emphasis mine).
4. In Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opudo v Republic [2022] eKLR, it was held that:
“The trial court is however cautioned that at this stage, it should not make definitive findings should it conclude that the accused has a case to answer.”
(Emphasis mine).
5. This matter will be mentioned on 25th May, 2026 for directions under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED this 17th day of March, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
ACCUSED: Both Present.
PROSECUTION COUNSEL: Ms. Muema.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Mr. Oduk.
COURT ASSISTANT: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
2. The authorities of Festo Wandera Mukando v Republic [1980] KLR 103 and Republic v Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opudo [2022] eKLR provide the jurisprudence that it is inadvisable for the court to give the reasons as to why an accused person is placed on his defence. I will therefore not give the reasons for my findings above.
3. In Festo Wandera Mukando, the Court stated thus:
“...we draw attention to the inadvisability of giving reasons for holding that an accused has a case to answer. It can prove embarrassing to the court and, in an extreme case, may require an appellate court to set aside an otherwise sound judgment. Where a submission of “no case” to answer is rejected, the court should say no more than that it is. It is otherwise where the submission is upheld when reasons should be given; for then that is the end to the case or the count or counts concerned.” (Emphasis mine).
4. In Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opudo v Republic [2022] eKLR, it was held that:
“The trial court is however cautioned that at this stage, it should not make definitive findings should it conclude that the accused has a case to answer.”
(Emphasis mine).
5. This matter will be mentioned on 25th May, 2026 for directions under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED this 17th day of March, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
ACCUSED: Both Present.
PROSECUTION COUNSEL: Ms. Muema.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Mr. Oduk.
COURT ASSISTANT: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.