[2022] KEHC 2437 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through eight witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT V. R and Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that a reasonable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2437 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Dennis Wafula Wekesa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 90 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to make his defence.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Murder Trial, Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, 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
Dennis Wafula Wekesa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution meets the threshold under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through eight witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT V. R and Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused must be put on his defence and informed of his rights to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, or call witnesses.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to make his defence.
Orders
- The accused is called upon to make his election on how he shall defend himself as provided under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 90 OF 2016
REPUBLIC................................................PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS-
DENNIS WAFULA WEKESA.........................ACCUSED
RULING
1. Prosecution in its case against DENNIS WAFULA WEKESA called eight (8) witnesses before closing its case. The accused is charged with the murder of PATRICK MWANGI WANDERI deceased.
2. The accused submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case to justify him being called to offer his defence. Accused relied on the case REPUBLIC VS. BERNARD OBUNGA OBUNGA (2015) eKLR where it was stated: -
“What constitutes a prima facie case is clearly stated inRAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT V. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335,where the court stated as follows:
‘Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one “which on full consideration mightpossiblybe thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence”. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence… It may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean 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”(emphasis mine). See also WIBIRO ALIAS MUSA V. R [1960] EA 184. ’”
3. I have considered the prosecution’s evidence and I am satisfied that the evidence suffices for the accused to be called to offer his defence as provided in Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75.
4. The accused is therefore informed that he has a right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate and to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence. The accused is called upon to make his election on how he shall defend himself.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram:
Court Assistant : Mourice
Accused : DENNIS WAFULA WEKESA : - Presebt
For accused : - Mr. Njehu
For DPP :- Mr. Kashoka & Benjamin
COURT
RULINGdelivered virtually.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE