'
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 5/6/2021 at Equator pub in Kawauni sub location Kangundo Sub County within Machakos County murdered Mutuku Mulwa Nzau.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to hearing during which the prosecution called 10 witnesses and closed its case.
3. Both the accused and the prosecution filed submissions addressing the issue of whether the accused has a case to answer. In his submissions dated 28th April 2025, the accused raised the following issues for determination namely; what is the cause of death and charges herein; whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case and whether the accused should be placed on his defence.
4. The accused submitted that there was no evidence linking him to the death of the deceased. He urged that the prosecution failed to establish that he caused the deceased death and therefore had not put out a prima facie case. He relied on the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs R (1957) EA 332 to urge the court to acquit him at this stage.
5. In their submission dated 15th May, 2025, the prosecution maintained that it had established a prima facie case implicating the accused person in the murdered of the deceased. They relied on the case of Republic versus Abdi Ibrahim Owl (2013)eKLR to buttress their argument and urged the court to place the accused on his defence.
6. Having considered the totality of the evidence of the 10 prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced in the court, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person. Accordingly, the accused person is placed on his defence.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The matter will be mentioned on 5th November 2025 for directions under Section 306(2) of the CPC.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 9th day of October, 2025.
'
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 5/6/2021 at Equator pub in Kawauni sub location Kangundo Sub County within Machakos County murdered Mutuku Mulwa Nzau.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to hearing during which the prosecution called 10 witnesses and closed its case.
3. Both the accused and the prosecution filed submissions addressing the issue of whether the accused has a case to answer. In his submissions dated 28th April 2025, the accused raised the following issues for determination namely; what is the cause of death and charges herein; whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case and whether the accused should be placed on his defence.
4. The accused submitted that there was no evidence linking him to the death of the deceased. He urged that the prosecution failed to establish that he caused the deceased death and therefore had not put out a prima facie case. He relied on the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs R (1957) EA 332 to urge the court to acquit him at this stage.
5. In their submission dated 15th May, 2025, the prosecution maintained that it had established a prima facie case implicating the accused person in the murdered of the deceased. They relied on the case of Republic versus Abdi Ibrahim Owl (2013)eKLR to buttress their argument and urged the court to place the accused on his defence.
6. Having considered the totality of the evidence of the 10 prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced in the court, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person. Accordingly, the accused person is placed on his defence.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The matter will be mentioned on 5th November 2025 for directions under Section 306(2) of the CPC.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 9th day of October, 2025.
'