[2019] KEHC 8900 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, through witness testimony and the circumstances of the alleged offence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the test from Bhatt v R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 8900 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Benard Lemara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 7 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Burden 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
Benard Lemara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to require the accused to respond.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, through witness testimony and the circumstances of the alleged offence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the test from Bhatt v R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented, and therefore the accused must be put on his defence to respond to the charge of murder.
Court Disposition
accused put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
- The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7 OF 2015
REPUBLIC .......................... STATE
VERSUS
BENARD LEMARA.....ACCUSED
RULING
1. The Accused Person, Bernard Lemara, is charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The allegations are that on the 12th day of November, 2014 at Mutende Trading Center in Njoro Sub County within Nakuru County, the Accused Person murdered Naomi Cherutich (“Deceased”).
2. The Prosecution called five witnesses. The evidence emerging from the Prosecution narrative is that the Accused Person, who was the husband to the Deceased, stabbed the Deceased in their house. The Deceased died from the single stab wound on her thigh.
3. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court is required to make a finding whether the Prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the Accused Person to be put on his defence or whether the case should be stopped at this point. The test to be utilized is the famous one stated in Bhatt –vs- R [1957] EA 332:whether, as a matter of law – without taking any conclusive view of the credibility and probative value of the evidence presented – the Prosecution has adduced reasonable sufficient evidence of the matter in respect of which it has the burden of proof. Reasonable sufficient evidence is one which a reasonable tribunal could convict.
4. In my view, the Prosecution has placed enough material to make this a fit case to require the Accused Person to respond to the evidence adduced.
5. Consequently, the Court finds that the Accused Person has a case to answer and puts him on his defence.The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Delivered at Nakuru this 28th day of March, 2019.
……………………………
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE