[2021] KEHC 2841 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient circumstantial and medical evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Bhatt v R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2841 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Isaack Kagiri Wanjiku
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 39 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused placed on his defence; prosecution established a prima facie case.
- Judges
- MC Kesse
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Isaack Kagiri Wanjiku
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence.
- 2 What constitutes a prima facie case in a charge of murder under Kenyan law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient circumstantial and medical evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Bhatt v R, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused was placed on his defence and informed of his rights to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, and call witnesses.
Court Disposition
Accused placed on his defence; prosecution established a prima facie case.
Orders
- The accused is placed on his defence.
- The accused is informed of his right to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, and call witnesses in his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAROK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39 OF 2017
(CORAM: F.M. GIKONYO J.)
REPUBLIC
-versus-
ISAACK KAGIRI WANJIKU
RULING
Prima faciecase
[1] The accused herein is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read Section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on 8th November 2017 at Oloikirkirai Trading Centre in Narok North Sub-county within Narok County he murdered one Evaline Rehak.
[2] The prosecution called nine (9) witnesses in support of their case. The court is now called upon to determine whether or not the prosecution has made out a prima faciecase against the accused that would warrant this court to call upon the accused to give his defence.
[3] As it was stated in the English Case of May vs. O’Sullivan [1955] 92 CLR 654 :
“When at the close of the case for the prosecution a submission is made that there is no case to answer, the question to be decided is not whether on the evidence as it stands the defendant ought to be convicted, but whether on the evidence as it stands he could lawfully be convicted. This is really a question of law.”
[4] The threshold therefore, of a Prima facie case is;
‘’…one which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence would convict if no explanation is offered by the defence’’. See RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R (1957) EA 332(CA)
[5] Without making any definite findings, careful consideration of the evidence adduced- circumstantial and medical- reveals a prima faciecase against the accused person, Accordingly, I place the accused to his defence.
[6] The accused is duly informed of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate, to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence. The accused person or his advocate shall now state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself.
[7] It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
............................
F. GIKONYO M.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Karanja for DPP
2. Langat for accused
3. Accused present
4. Mr. Kasaso – CA
............................
F. GIKONYO M.
JUDGE