[2019] KEHC 1639 (KLR)
Upon reviewing the testimonies of nine prosecution witnesses and the entire record, the court is satisfied that the prosecution has adduced evidence establishing a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the evidence is such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1639 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Calvin Waweru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 47 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused found to have a case to answer; to be put on his 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
Republic
Applicant
Calvin Waweru
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 sufficient to require him to be put on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon reviewing the testimonies of nine prosecution witnesses and the entire record, the court is satisfied that the prosecution has adduced evidence establishing a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the evidence is such that a reasonable tribunal could convict if the accused offers no explanation. Therefore, the accused is found to have a case to answer and is accordingly put on his defence.
Court Disposition
accused found to have a case to answer; to be put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and shall be put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 47 OF 2014
REPUBLIC...........................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
CALVIN WAWERU......................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. On 17th June 2019, the prosecution closed its case. The defence put in written submissions on a no case to answer. I have gone through the record to ascertain whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case, sufficient to have accused person put on his defence.
2. I have guidance from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R (1957) EA 332, where the court described a prima facie case as one in which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict, if no explanation was offered by the defence. Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Geoffrey Mukonza Mwangangi [2018] eKLR and Frankline Muthoka Mumo vs. Republic [2019] eKLR are in similar vein.
3. I have gone through the record before me, principally the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9, and I am persuaded that the prosecution has adduced evidence which establishes a prima facie case against the accused person, and I hereby find that the accused has a case to answer, and I shall, accordingly, be put him on his defence.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE