[2021] KEHC 3988 (KLR)
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of five prosecution witnesses and the material on record, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused persons. Applying the test from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the court held that a reasonable tribunal,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3988 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Anthony Khamadi; Defendant: Wycliffe Alosa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 68 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused persons found to have a case to answer and put on their defence
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, No Case to Answer, Criminal Trial Procedure
- 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
Director of Public Prosecutions
Applicant
Anthony Khamadi
Defendant
Wycliffe Alosa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant putting them on their defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of five prosecution witnesses and the material on record, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused persons. Applying the test from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation was offered. Therefore, the accused persons were found to have a case to answer and were put on their defence.
Court Disposition
accused persons found to have a case to answer and put on their defence
Orders
- The accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are hereby put on their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 68 OF 2015
REPUBLIC.......................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
ANTHONY KHAMADI......................................................1ST ACCUSED
WYCLIFFE ALOSA...........................................................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. On 15th March 2021, the prosecution closed its case. The defence indicated that it would file written submissions within 2 weeks. In the end it did not, and it invited the court, on 2nd June 2021, to rule on a no case to answer, based on the material on record. To that end, I have gone through the record, to assess whether or not the prosecution has established a prima facie case, sufficient to have accused person put on his defence.
2. I have gotten guidance from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R (1957) EA 332 (Sir Newham Worley P, Sir Ronald Sinclair VP and Bacon JA), where the court described a prima facie case as one in which a reasonable court, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict, if no explanation was offered by the defence. See also Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Geoffrey Mukonza Mwangangi [2018] eKLR (Ngenye-Macharia J) and Frankline Muthoka Mumo vs. Republic [2019] eKLR (Odunga J).
3. I have read through the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, and I am persuaded that the prosecution has adduced evidence which establishes a prima facie case against the accused persons, and I hereby find that the accused have a case to answer, and I shall, accordingly, put them on their defence.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE