REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL CASE. NO. E021 OF 2022
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………….ODPP
VERSUS
REUBEN MWASI MUNYOKI………………………..……….ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused Reuben Mwasi Munyoki is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code vide information dated 17/10/2022. The particulars are that on 2/10/2022 at around 2.00pm at Kasyule Village Kyamalutu Sub-location, Usueni Location Tseikuru Sub-County withing Kitui County, murdered one Peter Kyalo Mwasi. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
2. The prosecution called seven witnesses in support of their case and closed the case. This is a ruling as to whether the accused has a case to answer. I have considered all the evidence adduced by the seven witnesses called by the prosecution.
3. The issue for determination before this court is whether a prima facie case has been established to warrant the accused to be put on his defense. A prima facie case has been stated to be one which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defense. This was so held in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt -vs- Republic (19570 E.A 332.
4. At this stage of the proceedings the court has to analyze and evaluate the evidence tendered by the prosecution and make a finding as to whether a prima facie case has been established to warrant the court to call upon the accused to give his defense. In the event that the court concludes that a prima facie case has been established it is not supposed to give reasons for the following reasons:
(1) If the accused is to be put on his defense, reasons should not be given as it would prejudice the defense of the accused.
(2) By giving reason, the court would be condemning the accused without giving him an opportunity to be heard. This would be contrary to the rules of natural justice which hold that no person should be condemned without giving him an opportunity to be heard and to give his side of the story. The court should not appear to have made-up its mind on the guilt of the accused before hearing his defense.
5. On the other hand, if the court finds that there is no case to answer, if there is no evidence of material ingredients of the offence or if the prosecution has been so discredited and untrustworthy that no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could safely convict, it must acquit the accused at that stage. See R -vs- Wachira (1957) EA 262.
6. I have done my duty and considered all the evidence adduced by the prosecution up to the close of the prosecution. I am satisfied that it is sufficient and has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused person to be put on his defence as charged and in line with Section 306 of the Criminal procedure Code , The accused person shall be put on his defence and shall opt to give his defence on oath in which case he shall be cross-examined by the prosecution. He may also opt to give unsworn statutory statement in his defence and shall not be cross-examined. The accused may also decide to keep quiet and leave the matter to the court to decide.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitui this 31st day of March 2026
HON. LADY JUSTICE L. GITARI
JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL CASE. NO. E021 OF 2022
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………….ODPP
VERSUS
REUBEN MWASI MUNYOKI………………………..……….ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused Reuben Mwasi Munyoki is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code vide information dated 17/10/2022. The particulars are that on 2/10/2022 at around 2.00pm at Kasyule Village Kyamalutu Sub-location, Usueni Location Tseikuru Sub-County withing Kitui County, murdered one Peter Kyalo Mwasi. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
2. The prosecution called seven witnesses in support of their case and closed the case. This is a ruling as to whether the accused has a case to answer. I have considered all the evidence adduced by the seven witnesses called by the prosecution.
3. The issue for determination before this court is whether a prima facie case has been established to warrant the accused to be put on his defense. A prima facie case has been stated to be one which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defense. This was so held in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt -vs- Republic (19570 E.A 332.
4. At this stage of the proceedings the court has to analyze and evaluate the evidence tendered by the prosecution and make a finding as to whether a prima facie case has been established to warrant the court to call upon the accused to give his defense. In the event that the court concludes that a prima facie case has been established it is not supposed to give reasons for the following reasons:
(1) If the accused is to be put on his defense, reasons should not be given as it would prejudice the defense of the accused.
(2) By giving reason, the court would be condemning the accused without giving him an opportunity to be heard. This would be contrary to the rules of natural justice which hold that no person should be condemned without giving him an opportunity to be heard and to give his side of the story. The court should not appear to have made-up its mind on the guilt of the accused before hearing his defense.
5. On the other hand, if the court finds that there is no case to answer, if there is no evidence of material ingredients of the offence or if the prosecution has been so discredited and untrustworthy that no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could safely convict, it must acquit the accused at that stage. See R -vs- Wachira (1957) EA 262.
6. I have done my duty and considered all the evidence adduced by the prosecution up to the close of the prosecution. I am satisfied that it is sufficient and has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused person to be put on his defence as charged and in line with Section 306 of the Criminal procedure Code , The accused person shall be put on his defence and shall opt to give his defence on oath in which case he shall be cross-examined by the prosecution. He may also opt to give unsworn statutory statement in his defence and shall not be cross-examined. The accused may also decide to keep quiet and leave the matter to the court to decide.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitui this 31st day of March 2026
HON. LADY JUSTICE L. GITARI
JUDGE