' The accused person was charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya and the particulars of offence are that the accused person on 31st October 2022 at around 2200 hours at City Carton Slums in Buruburu within Nairobi County murdered ELVASON MWANGI IRUNGU alias MWAS.
The prosecution in this case called a total of 7 witnesses in support of the case against the accused person.
At the close of the prosecution’s case the accused person counsel applied to file written submissions on whether or not the accused person had a case to answer and the submissions dated 17 th September 2025 by Anawa Atanda Advocate were filed and this court has duly considered the same. The defense submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting the accused to be placed on his defence pursuant to Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Counsel for the accused submitted that there was no evidence to indicate that it was the accused who inflicted the a fatal blow on the deceased although there was evidence that there was an altercation involving three individuals that is the accused, the deceased and another neighbor.
Further the defense submitted that since the murder weapon was not produced there wasn’t sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the offence. The defense further asserted that there was no evidence of premeditation or intend to kill thus the element of malice aforethought was not proved.
The defense urged the court to consider that the evidence was insufficient to justify the accused being put on defense. The prosecution through Ms Dela indicated that they were in the process of filing submissions but as at the time of writing the ruling the submissions of the state were not on record therefore this court proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of the evidence adduced.
The court in considering whether or not to place an accused person to his defense, the evidence tendered by the prosecution should be sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption of guilt unless disproved or rebutted.
In Republic v Abdi Ibrahim [2013] EKLR , a prima facie case was defined as follows: “Prima facie” is a Latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8 th Edition as “Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. “Prima facie case” is defined by the same dictionary as “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption”.
6.In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335 , the court stated as follows: “Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one “which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence…It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
After analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution this court has found that :
The deceased died in circumstances that were consistent with an assault thus the provisions of Section 206 of the Penal Code strictly interpreted and weighed against the available evidence would be sufficient for the court to infer malice aforethought as against the assailants of the deceased.
That the death of the deceased was as a direct result of the assault thus the accused person and his friend with whom they were said to be in the company of the deceased at the time of the assault would be criminally culpable in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal.
This court is satisfied that there is sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence linking the accused person to the offence and therefore this court has no hesitation in placing the accused person to his defense.
Accordingly, the accused is found have a case to answer in accordance with Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure and is hereby placed to his defense.
It is so ordered.
'
The prosecution in this case called a total of 7 witnesses in support of the case against the accused person.
At the close of the prosecution’s case the accused person counsel applied to file written submissions on whether or not the accused person had a case to answer and the submissions dated 17 th September 2025 by Anawa Atanda Advocate were filed and this court has duly considered the same. The defense submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting the accused to be placed on his defence pursuant to Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Counsel for the accused submitted that there was no evidence to indicate that it was the accused who inflicted the a fatal blow on the deceased although there was evidence that there was an altercation involving three individuals that is the accused, the deceased and another neighbor.
Further the defense submitted that since the murder weapon was not produced there wasn’t sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the offence. The defense further asserted that there was no evidence of premeditation or intend to kill thus the element of malice aforethought was not proved.
The defense urged the court to consider that the evidence was insufficient to justify the accused being put on defense. The prosecution through Ms Dela indicated that they were in the process of filing submissions but as at the time of writing the ruling the submissions of the state were not on record therefore this court proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of the evidence adduced.
The court in considering whether or not to place an accused person to his defense, the evidence tendered by the prosecution should be sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption of guilt unless disproved or rebutted.
In Republic v Abdi Ibrahim [2013] EKLR , a prima facie case was defined as follows: “Prima facie” is a Latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8 th Edition as “Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. “Prima facie case” is defined by the same dictionary as “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption”.
6.In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335 , the court stated as follows: “Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one “which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence…It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
After analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution this court has found that :
The deceased died in circumstances that were consistent with an assault thus the provisions of Section 206 of the Penal Code strictly interpreted and weighed against the available evidence would be sufficient for the court to infer malice aforethought as against the assailants of the deceased.
That the death of the deceased was as a direct result of the assault thus the accused person and his friend with whom they were said to be in the company of the deceased at the time of the assault would be criminally culpable in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal.
This court is satisfied that there is sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence linking the accused person to the offence and therefore this court has no hesitation in placing the accused person to his defense.
Accordingly, the accused is found have a case to answer in accordance with Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure and is hereby placed to his defense.
It is so ordered.
'