[2021] KEHC 9289 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of establishing a prima facie case against both accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court held that there was sufficient evidence on record such that a reasonable tribunal could convict if no explanation...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 9289 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Dickson Kimutai Koech; Defendant: Philip Kibet Langat
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application 10 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Both accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to make their defence.
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, 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
Dickson Kimutai Koech
Defendant
Philip Kibet Langat
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant their being put on their defence.
- 2 What constitutes a prima facie case under Kenyan criminal law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of establishing a prima facie case against both accused persons. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court held that there was sufficient evidence on record such that a reasonable tribunal could convict if no explanation was offered by the defence. The court also noted that, at this stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence unless the ruling results in an acquittal, in order to preserve the integrity of the defence case. Consequently, both accused persons were called upon to make their defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Both accused persons found to have a case to answer and ordered to make their defence.
Orders
- Each accused shall make his defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BOMET
CRIMINAL CASE NO.10 OF 2018
REPUBLIC.........................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DICKSON KIMUTAI KOECH........1ND ACCUSED
PHILIP KIBET LANGAT..................2NDACCUSED
RULING
1. The 1st and 2nd Accused persons are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence are that on the 19th day of June, 2018 at Kaptebengwet location in Konoin District within Bomet County jointly with others not before court murdered Julius Otieno.
2. Both Accused took plea before Muya J on 12th July, 2018 and denied the charge. Their trial commenced on 2nd October, 2018 and Muya J heard 2 witnesses. Subsequently, the case proceeded before Dulu J who heard 3 witnesses before I took over the case and heard the last 3 prosecution witnesses.
3. At the close of the prosecution case, both the prosecution and the defence filed respective submissions on case or no case to answer. I have carefully considered the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and the submissions on record. In so doing, I have borne in mind the provisions of section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and what constitutes a prima facie case.
4. In defining a prima facie case, the Court of Appeal in Anthony Njue Njeru –vs- Republic (2006) eKLR cited with approvalRAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT V R [1957] E.A. 332 at p. 334-335 where it was said:-
“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 might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
….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.”
5. I have also borne in mind that when making a finding on a prima facie case, a trial court is not expected to render a detailed analysis of the evidence unless the ruling leads to an acquittal. It is also important not to analyse the evidence if the Accused will be put on his defence as such detailed analysis may compromise the evidentiary quality of the defence to be mounted. See Republic V Samuel Karanja Kiria Cr. Case No.13 Of 2004 Nairobi [2009] eKLR.
6. I have carefully considered all the evidence on record and the respective submissions of the parties. It is my finding that the prosecution has discharged the burden of establishing a prima facie case against each Accused. Each Accused shall therefore make his defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. Orders accordingly.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed this 26th day of January, 2021.
R. LAGAT KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of the Accused, Prosecution and Defence Counsel and Court Assistant.