[2019] KEHC 1519 (KLR)
The court found that, upon considering the totality of the prosecution's evidence and the applicable legal standards, a prima facie case had been established against the accused. The presence of direct eyewitness testimony from two prosecution witnesses, which implicated the accused, was deemed sufficient to require...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1519 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Frederick Kipkirui Korir
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 30 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, No 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
Frederick Kipkirui Korir
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to require him to be put on his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to warrant the accused being called to answer the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, upon considering the totality of the prosecution's evidence and the applicable legal standards, a prima facie case had been established against the accused. The presence of direct eyewitness testimony from two prosecution witnesses, which implicated the accused, was deemed sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence. The court applied the principle from Ramanlal Trambakal Bhatt v R, holding that if a tribunal could convict on the evidence presented, a case to answer exists. Accordingly, the accused was called upon to present his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence in terms of section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAROK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 30 OF 2017
REPUBLIC......................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
FREDERICK KIPKIRUI KORIR.........ACCUSED
RULING
1. The issue before me is whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, so as to require him to be put on his defence in terms of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya.
2. The accused in charged with the murder of Charles Rotich, which is an offence under section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code (Cap 63) Laws of Kenya.
3. At the close of the prosecution case, counsel for the accused, Messrs Ochego-Onduso made a submission of no case to answer, which was supported with authorities including but not limited to Ramanlal Trambakal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, in which the court held that a prima faciecase is made out if a tribunal properly directing its mind on the law and the evidence could convict, if no explanation is offered by the defence. Counsel further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not corroborated, which counsel pointed out was circumstantial in nature.
4. The prosecution in response submitted that a prima facie had been made out against the accused to warrant the him being put on his defence. They cited Ramanlal Trambakal Bhatt v R,supra, amongst other authorities. They furthermore, submitted that two prosecution witnesses namely Robert Kipyegon (Pw 1) and Robert Kipyegon Mutai (PW 3) gave direct eyewitness evidence, which implicates the accused.
5. I have considered the totality of the evidence in the light of the applicable law. As a result, I find that the accused has a case to answer.
6. He is therefore put on his defence in terms of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya.
Ruling signed, dated and delivered at Narok in open court this 3rd day of December, 2019 in the presence of Mr. Omwega for the Republic and Mr. Onduso for the accused.
J. M. Bwonwong’a
Judge
3/12/2019