Starlet Wahu murder case: Court finds John Matara has case to answer

Murder suspect in Starlet Wahu's death, John Matara, present before Justice Alexander Muteti at Milimani High Court, Nairobi on May 22, 2026/LEAH MUKANGAI

The Milimani High Court has ruled that John Matara, the man accused of murdering socialite Starlet Wahu, has a case to answer and will be required to present his defence.

In a ruling delivered on Friday, Justice Alexander Muteti found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the suspect, warranting him being placed on his defence.

The decision came after the prosecution closed its case earlier in April after calling 18 witnesses who testified in support of the charges against Matara.

He denied the murder charges during his initial arraignment.

According to the court, the evidence presented was sufficient to place the accused at the centre of the events that led to the death of the deceased at an Apartment in South B, Nairobi, where the incident is alleged to have occurred.

"The prosecution was able to establish that the accused (Matara) and the deceased (Wahu) occupied the room where the body of the deceased was discovered shortly after the accused had left the apartment," the judge observed.

The court further heard testimony indicating that the deceased sustained multiple injuries inside the room, with evidence pointing to a violent assault.

Witnesses also described the presence of blood strewn across the room, reinforcing claims of a brutal attack.

In addition, the court was told that Matara was seen leaving the building with visible bloodstains on his trousers and a white towel wrapped around his neck, which was also reportedly stained with blood.

Justice Muteti emphasised that at this stage of the proceedings, the court is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence but only to determine whether there is sufficient material that could lead a reasonable court, properly directing itself, to convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.

“The court has received credible evidence that a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence,” the judge stated.

He further noted that while the prosecution bears the full burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the threshold at this stage is limited to establishing a prima facie case.

Justice Muteti consequently ruled that the accused has a case to answer in accordance to the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered that he be placed on his defence.