REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E011 OF 2024
REPUBLIC……….......................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
JOHN MUTHUKA NZILANI…………………………....…………ACCUSED
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. The accused person namely John Muthuka Nzilani was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code particulars being between the 27th and 28th day of December 2020 at Kyangala Location in Kalama Sub-County within Machakos County murdered Jackson Mutua Muthiani.
2. The accused denied the charges and the case proceeded for hearing. The Prosecution called eleven (11) witnesses in a bid to prove their case. At the close of the prosecution’s case, directions were taken on filing of submissions on no case to answer. The prosecution opted not to file any submissions but to rely on the evidence on record while the accused person through his Counsel Mr. Eregae filed submissions dated 27th February 2026.
3. The accused submitted that this Honourable Court stands as the final bastion of justice in a criminal matter marred by the Prosecution’s disregard for the rule of law. The burden of proof in criminal proceedings lies solely with the prosecution which must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. It is submitted that the duty of this Honourable Court is to carefully evaluate whether the prosecution has discharged this burden and whether the evidence presented meets the requisite legal threshold to warrant placing the accused on his defence.
5. The Defence respectfully submits that the prosecution’s case when scrutinised against the applicable legal principles and evidentiary standards reveals material evidentiary gaps that do not warrant the accused to be placed on his defence.
6. It is trite law that at the close of the prosecution’s case, the trial court must consider the evidence so far tendered by the prosecution to determine whether a prima facie case has been established in order to call upon the accused person to defend himself. If no such case has been made out at this stage, then the trial court must acquit the accused person as provided for under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. What constitutes a prima facie case is clearly stated 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 person on his defence". A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence......It 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"
8. With the above authority in mind, I have carefully reviewed the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as the submissions tendered on behalf of the accused on no case to answer and I do find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused person. Accordingly, the accused person is put on his defence.
9. This case shall therefore proceed for defence hearing.
10. It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 20TH MAY 2026
NOEL I. ADAGI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Eregae for the Accused
Ms Agatha Abang for State
Milly-Court Asst.
IN THE HIGH OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E011 OF 2024
REPUBLIC……….......................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
JOHN MUTHUKA NZILANI…………………………....…………ACCUSED
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. The accused person namely John Muthuka Nzilani was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code particulars being between the 27th and 28th day of December 2020 at Kyangala Location in Kalama Sub-County within Machakos County murdered Jackson Mutua Muthiani.
2. The accused denied the charges and the case proceeded for hearing. The Prosecution called eleven (11) witnesses in a bid to prove their case. At the close of the prosecution’s case, directions were taken on filing of submissions on no case to answer. The prosecution opted not to file any submissions but to rely on the evidence on record while the accused person through his Counsel Mr. Eregae filed submissions dated 27th February 2026.
3. The accused submitted that this Honourable Court stands as the final bastion of justice in a criminal matter marred by the Prosecution’s disregard for the rule of law. The burden of proof in criminal proceedings lies solely with the prosecution which must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. It is submitted that the duty of this Honourable Court is to carefully evaluate whether the prosecution has discharged this burden and whether the evidence presented meets the requisite legal threshold to warrant placing the accused on his defence.
5. The Defence respectfully submits that the prosecution’s case when scrutinised against the applicable legal principles and evidentiary standards reveals material evidentiary gaps that do not warrant the accused to be placed on his defence.
6. It is trite law that at the close of the prosecution’s case, the trial court must consider the evidence so far tendered by the prosecution to determine whether a prima facie case has been established in order to call upon the accused person to defend himself. If no such case has been made out at this stage, then the trial court must acquit the accused person as provided for under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. What constitutes a prima facie case is clearly stated 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 person on his defence". A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence......It 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"
8. With the above authority in mind, I have carefully reviewed the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as the submissions tendered on behalf of the accused on no case to answer and I do find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused person. Accordingly, the accused person is put on his defence.
9. This case shall therefore proceed for defence hearing.
10. It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 20TH MAY 2026
NOEL I. ADAGI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Eregae for the Accused
Ms Agatha Abang for State
Milly-Court Asst.