[2017] KEHC 5435 (KLR)
The court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons, based on the circumstantial evidence presented. Although the identification of the accused at the scene was in question, the court found that the evidence on record was sufficient at this stage to require the accused...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5435 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nur Maalim Mohamed; Defendant: Shaban Mohamed Issack
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 23 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Evidence
- Outcome
- Both accused found to have a case to answer and put on their defence.
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Case to Answer, Circumstantial Evidence, Standard of Proof, Prima Facie Case
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Nur Maalim Mohamed
Defendant
Shaban Mohamed Issack
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting them on their defence.
- 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced meets the threshold to require the accused to answer the charge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both accused persons, based on the circumstantial evidence presented. Although the identification of the accused at the scene was in question, the court found that the evidence on record was sufficient at this stage to require the accused to be put on their defence. The court emphasized that the standard at this stage is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but whether a prima facie case exists such that the accused must answer the charge. Accordingly, both accused were found to have a case to answer and were put on their defence under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Both accused found to have a case to answer and put on their defence.
Orders
- Each of the accused is put on their defence under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT GARISSA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 23 OF 2014
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
NUR MAALIM MOHAMED….…………………………1ST ACCUSED
SHABAN MOHAMED ISSACK………………………..2ND ACCUSED
RULING
At the close of the prosecution evidence, counsel for both the accused – Mr. Nyaga submitted that the accused had no case to answer. Counsel emphasized that the incident occurred at night, and the culprits were not identified at the scene. Counsel stated that the evidence of the prosecution on record fell short of the threshold required in criminal cases where the case is hinged on circumstantial evidence, and urged the court to acquit both accused under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap. 75).
Mr. Okemwa for the state submitted that a prima facie case had been established against each of the two accused, which connected them to the killing of the deceased.
I have considered the submissions on both sides on case to answer. I appreciate that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. At this stage of the case, the court is not required to go into the details of determining whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. That is why, the standard of proof required is establishment of a prima facie case – where on considering the evidence on record the court may not must convict – if the accused does not say anything.
In my view, the prosecution has established a prima facie case against each of the two accused herein. I will thus put them on their defences.
I thus find that each of the accused has a case to answer. I put each of the two accused on their defence. I hereafter proceed to explain to them the options available to them in their respective defences – under section 211 Criminal Procedure Code.
Dated and delivered at Garissa this 4th day of May 2017
GEORGE DULU
JUDGE