Republic v Muse (Criminal Case E007 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 14298 (KLR) (14 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2024] KEHC 14298 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Criminal Case E007 of 2021
JN Onyiego, J
November 14, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Mohamud Ali Muse
Accused
Ruling
1.The accused person herein is charged of murder contrary to section 203 as with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 10th October 2021 at Ifo refugee camp within Dadaab Sub-County of Garissa County, he Murdered Fatuma Hassan Abdi.
2.He was arraigned before court and upon the charges being read to him, he pleaded not guilty hence a plea of not guilty entered.
3.The matter proceeded to full hearing wherein the prosecution called a total of eight (9) witnesses in order to prove its case. At the close of the prosecution case, both counsel opted not to submit and instead urged the court to deliver its ruling based on the evidence tendered by the prosecution.
4.It is trite that in a criminal trial, once the prosecution closes its case, the court is call upon to make a finding whether the evidence tendered meets the threshold of a primafacie case to enable the court put accused on his defence. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court of law to return a guilty verdict even if the accused opts to remain silent.
5.Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does provide as follows:
6.Having considered the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the question that begs an answer is whether the evidence tendered establishes a prima facie case against the accused. In Republic vs Abdi Ibrahim Owi [2013] eKLR, the court defined a prima facie case as follows:
7.Guided by the above case law, can this court on the basis of the evidence so far tendered by the prosecution properly directing itself to the law and evidence tendered convict, if the accused chooses not to give any evidence?
8.In the case of Ronald Nyaga Kiura vs Republic [2018] eKLR, the court held:
9.The trial court is however cautious that at this stage, it should not make definitive findings should it conclude that the accused has a case to answer. In Festo Wandera Mukando vs Republic [1980] KLR 103, the court held thus:
10.Without delving into the depths of the witnesses’ testimonies, I am satisfied that the Prosecution more particularly through the testimony of pw6, pw7, pw8 and pw9 and the available circumstantial evidence have established a prima facie case against the accused person to warrant him being placed on his defence. I therefore find that the accused herein has a case to answer and he is therefore call upon to tender his defence.
11.Accordingly, section 211 of the CPC shall be complied with to the extent that; accused shall be at liberty to give sworn testimony in which case he will be subjected to cross examination by the prosecution; Alternatively, he can opt to give unsworn testimony to which he will not be subjected to cross examination. Third option, he can choose to keep quiet. In either option, he shall be at liberty to call witnesses.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024.J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE