[2016] KEHC 2799 (KLR)
The court, after considering the evidence of the seven prosecution witnesses and applying the definition of a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. Republic, found that the prosecution had established a case sufficient to require the accused to answer. The court held that a reasonable tribunal,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2799 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Defendant: Harun Mureithi Guchu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 4 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, 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
Respondent
Harun Mureithi Guchu
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.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the evidence of the seven prosecution witnesses and applying the definition of a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. Republic, found that the prosecution had established a case sufficient to require the accused to answer. 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 was found to have a case to answer and was informed of his rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to address the court, give evidence, or call witnesses in his defence.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is informed of his rights to address the court, give evidence, or call witnesses in his defence as per section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4 OF 2015
REPUBLIC …………………..PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
HARUN MUREITHI GUCHU …….. ACCUSED
RULING
[1] HARUN MUREITHI GUCHU is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The prosecution called a total of 7 witnesses and then closed its case. In accordance with the provisions of section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75, I am required to consider whether the accused has a case to answer.
[2] At this stage the court in determining whether the accused has a case to answer the court should establish whether the 7 witnesses called by the prosecution established a prima facie case. The case RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLALBHATT V. REPUBLIC (1957)EA 332 defined a prima facie case as follows:-
“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.”
[3] Bearing in mind that definition and having considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I do find that the accused has a case to answer. Accordingly in compliance with section 306(2)ofCap 75 I hereby inform the accused that he has a right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate, he has a right to give evidence on his own behalf or to make an unsworn statement and to call witnesses in his defence.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM:
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant – Njue
Appellant: Harun Mureithi Nguchu …………………….
For the State: ….....................................
COURT
Ruling delivered in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE