'
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 31st August 2015 at Muthetheni location in Mwala Sub County within Machakos County murdered Joseph Mbondo Maseki.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to hearing during which the prosecution called 9 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. As at the time of writing this Ruling prosecution submissions were not on record.
4. In his submissions dated 25th March 2025, the accused submitted that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against the accused. They urged the court to proceed and acquit him under the provisions of section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It was their submission that the prosecution had a legal obligation to prove the critical ingredients of the offence of murder as set out in the case of Republic v Puis Kikungu John (2019)eKLR. He also points the court to the case of Joan Chebii Sawe v Republic that provided the guide where the evidence relied upon is purely evidential.
6. The accused submitted that there was nothing tangible to connect the accused with the death of the deceased. The prosecution failed to prove that the death of the deceased was the direct consequence of an unlawful act or omission on the part of the accused which constitutes actus reus of the offence. Further that there was no proof that the accused person committed the alleged offence at all as no prosecution witness placed the accused at the scene of crime. They made reference to the case of Republic vs Morris Karani Alando (Kakamega Criminal (Murder) Case No. 32 of 2012 to urge that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case to warrant accused being placed on his defence.
7. . Having considered the totality of the evidence of the 9 prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced in the court, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person. .
8. 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.
9. 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
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 31st August 2015 at Muthetheni location in Mwala Sub County within Machakos County murdered Joseph Mbondo Maseki.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to hearing during which the prosecution called 9 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. As at the time of writing this Ruling prosecution submissions were not on record.
4. In his submissions dated 25th March 2025, the accused submitted that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against the accused. They urged the court to proceed and acquit him under the provisions of section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It was their submission that the prosecution had a legal obligation to prove the critical ingredients of the offence of murder as set out in the case of Republic v Puis Kikungu John (2019)eKLR. He also points the court to the case of Joan Chebii Sawe v Republic that provided the guide where the evidence relied upon is purely evidential.
6. The accused submitted that there was nothing tangible to connect the accused with the death of the deceased. The prosecution failed to prove that the death of the deceased was the direct consequence of an unlawful act or omission on the part of the accused which constitutes actus reus of the offence. Further that there was no proof that the accused person committed the alleged offence at all as no prosecution witness placed the accused at the scene of crime. They made reference to the case of Republic vs Morris Karani Alando (Kakamega Criminal (Murder) Case No. 32 of 2012 to urge that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case to warrant accused being placed on his defence.
7. . Having considered the totality of the evidence of the 9 prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced in the court, I find that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person. .
8. 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.
9. 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
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 9th day of October, 2025.
'