1. The accused person was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read together with Section 204 of the Penal code. The particulars are that on 6th August 2020 at Maseweni Village, Yatta Sub County within Machakos County murdered Martha Mbeke Thambu.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to hearing during which the prosecution called 6 witnesses and closed its case.
3. Both the accused and the prosecution were directed to file submissions addressing the issue of whether the accused has a case to answer. The prosecution filed their submissions dated 31st July 2025. As at the time of writing this Ruling the accused submissions were not on record.
4. The prosecution proceeded to analyse the evidence of all the six witnesses and urged the court to find that all the ingredients of the offence of murder had been proven. It was there submission that it had made out a sufficient case enough to warrant the accused being placed in his defence. They urged the court to rely on the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs R (1957) E.A 332 and find that it had established a sufficient case to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence.
5. Having considered the totality of the evidence of the 6 prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced in the court, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person.
6. At this juncture I will reserve my reasons for the finding. I am guided by the decision in Festo Wandera Mukando versus Republic 1980 (KLR) 103 and Republic versus Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opundo (2022) eKLR which cautioned that; it is inadvisable for the trial court to give reasons as to why an accused person is placed on his defence.
7. I therefore will remain cautious not to make any definitive findings at this stage by declining to provide reasons, even as I conclude that the accused has a case to answer. Accordingly, the accused person is placed on his defence.
8. The matter will be mentioned on 16th December 2025 for directions under Section 306(2) of the CPC.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 11th day of December 2025.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to hearing during which the prosecution called 6 witnesses and closed its case.
3. Both the accused and the prosecution were directed to file submissions addressing the issue of whether the accused has a case to answer. The prosecution filed their submissions dated 31st July 2025. As at the time of writing this Ruling the accused submissions were not on record.
4. The prosecution proceeded to analyse the evidence of all the six witnesses and urged the court to find that all the ingredients of the offence of murder had been proven. It was there submission that it had made out a sufficient case enough to warrant the accused being placed in his defence. They urged the court to rely on the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs R (1957) E.A 332 and find that it had established a sufficient case to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence.
5. Having considered the totality of the evidence of the 6 prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced in the court, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person.
6. At this juncture I will reserve my reasons for the finding. I am guided by the decision in Festo Wandera Mukando versus Republic 1980 (KLR) 103 and Republic versus Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opundo (2022) eKLR which cautioned that; it is inadvisable for the trial court to give reasons as to why an accused person is placed on his defence.
7. I therefore will remain cautious not to make any definitive findings at this stage by declining to provide reasons, even as I conclude that the accused has a case to answer. Accordingly, the accused person is placed on his defence.
8. The matter will be mentioned on 16th December 2025 for directions under Section 306(2) of the CPC.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 11th day of December 2025.