1. Having considered the evidence of the ten (10) prosecution witnesses, the exhibits produced and the record in its entirety, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person and she is hereby placed on her 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/her 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, 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 than 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 Republic v Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opudo [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).
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED this 21st day of September, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
ACCUSED: Present.
PROSECUTION COUNSEL: Ms. Muema.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Mr. Onyango.
COURT ASSISTANT: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
Mr. Onyango: The accused will give an unsworn statement and will not call witnesses.
Court: Directions under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are hereby taken that the accused will give an unsworn statement and will not call witnesses.
Defence hearing will be on 8th December, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
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/her 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, 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 than 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 Republic v Kevin Owuor Abith alias Opudo [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).
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED this 21st day of September, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
ACCUSED: Present.
PROSECUTION COUNSEL: Ms. Muema.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Mr. Onyango.
COURT ASSISTANT: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
Mr. Onyango: The accused will give an unsworn statement and will not call witnesses.
Court: Directions under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are hereby taken that the accused will give an unsworn statement and will not call witnesses.
Defence hearing will be on 8th December, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE