[2021] KEHC 1460 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, taken at its highest, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the test from established case law, the court held that if the accused chose to remain silent, the evidence on record could sustain a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 1460 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Jacob Aswani Mudanya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 22 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Murder Trial, Prima Facie Case, 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
Jacob Aswani Mudanya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused sufficient to require him to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if uncontroverted, would warrant a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, taken at its highest, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the test from established case law, the court held that if the accused chose to remain silent, the evidence on record could sustain a conviction. Therefore, the accused must be put on his defence as required by section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court did not at this stage weigh the evidence to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but only determined that the prosecution's case was strong enough to require an answer from the accused.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is called upon to make his election on how he shall present his defence as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 OF 2017
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC............................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JACOB ASWANI MUDANYA.......................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. JACOB ASWANI MUDANYA is charged with the offence of murder. The prosecution closed its case after calling 7 witnesses. The closure of the prosecution’s case calls upon this Court to rule whether the accused has a case to answer as provided under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap. 75. In the case REPUBLIC VS. JOSEPH SHITANDI & ANOTHER (2014) eKLR the judge held:-
“A case to answer is a case where if the accused keeps quiet, the evidence of the prosecution should be such that a conviction will result.”
2. In the case REPUBLIC VS. JONES MUTUA ANTHONY & 3 OTHERS (2019) eKLR the court considering whether the accused had a case to answer stated:-
“8. The question that this court has to deal with and answer at this stage is therefore whether based on the evidence before this Court, the Court after properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence can convict if the accused chose to give no evidence. It was therefore held inRONALD NYAGA KIURA VS. REPUBLIC [2018] eKLRwherein paragraph 22 it is stated as follows:
“It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that a prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person. This is well illustrated in the cited Court of Appeal case ofRAMANLAL BHAT -VS- REPUBLIC [1957] EA 332. At that stage of the proceedings the trial court does not concern itself to the standard of proof required to convict which is normally beyond reasonable doubt. The weight of the evidence however must be such that it is sufficient for the trial court to place the accused to his defence.”
3. In this case, I am satisfied that the evidence of the prosecution does suffice for the accused to be called upon to defend himself.
4. Accordingly, as provided under Section 306(2) of Cap. 75, the accused is informed that he has a right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate or to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make unsworn statement and to call witnesses in his defence. The accused is also required to state whether he shall call any witnesses. The accused is now called upon to make his election on how he shall present his defence.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram:
Court Assistant : Maurice
For DPP : Kathambi/Kasyoka
For Accused :- Njehu
Accused : JACOB ASWANI MUDANYA :Present
COURT
RULING delivered virtually.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE