[2020] KEHC 2949 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, meaning that the evidence presented was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence. The court relied on established legal principles that a prima facie case exists where a reasonable tribunal, properly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2949 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Daniel Kipkurui Kibowen
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kabarnet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 61 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer; ordered to enter defence.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Criminal Procedure, Burden of Proof
- 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
Daniel Kipkurui Kibowen
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 require him to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, meaning that the evidence presented was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence. The court relied on established legal principles that a prima facie case exists where a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. The court also emphasized the need to avoid prejudicing the fair trial by not delving into the merits at this stage. Consequently, the accused was called upon to enter his defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer; ordered to enter defence.
Orders
- The accused shall be put on his defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The rights of the accused under section 306(2) shall be explained to him.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 61 OF 2017
REPUBLIC..................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DANIEL KIPKURUI KIBOWEN........................ACCUSED
RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER
1. Upon considering the evidence presented herein by the Prosecution and the written submissions dated 23rd April 2020 thereon by Counsel for the Accused, without exhaustive discussion of the merits so as not to prejudice the fair trial of the case as counseled by Kibera Karimi v. R (1979) KLR 36, and Festo Wandera Mukando v. R (1976 – 80) KLR 1626, and having considered as held in KBT HCCRC No. 13 of 2017, that –
“A trial Court is under a duty, as held by the Court of Appeal in Murimi v. R (1967) EA 542, to acquit an accused if the Prosecution “failed to make out a case sufficient to require the accused to enter a defence” and further that such a case is made out when a prima facie case is established being “one on which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.” See Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R (1957) EA 332, 335”
I find that the Prosecution has established a prima facie case.
2. Consequently, the accused shall be put on his defence in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and his rights thereunder shall be explained to him.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020.
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances:
M/S Mbeche & Co. Advocates for the Appellant.
Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Respondent.