[2016] KEHC 1605 (KLR)
The court found that, after considering the evidence of the seven prosecution witnesses and the written submissions of both parties, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the accused was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1605 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Jacob Mbogho Paul
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 15 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence
- Judges
- CM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Case to Answer, Prima Facie Evidence, 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 Mbogho Paul
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 require him to be put on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, after considering the evidence of the seven prosecution witnesses and the written submissions of both parties, the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence, if left unchallenged, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Therefore, the accused was required to be put on his defence in accordance with the law.
Court Disposition
accused put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is hereby put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VOI
CRIMINAL CASE NO 15 OF 2015
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
JACOB MBOGHO PAUL
RULING
1. On 14th July 2016, the Prosecution closed its case after calling a total of seven (7) Prosecution witnesses.
2. On the same date, the court directed that counsel for the State and counsel for the Accused person file their respective Written Submissions on the question of whether or not the Accused person had a case to answer.
3. On 10th August 2016, the Accused person filed his Written Submissions of even date. The State filed its Written Submissions dated 31st August 2016 on 1st September 2016.
4. Accordingly, having carefully considered the evidence by the Prosecution witnesses, the Written Submissions by counsel for the State and the counsel for the Accused person and the case law that they relied upon, the court was of the opinion that a prima facie case had been established against the Accused person to warrant himbeing put on hisDefence. He is hereby put on his defence.
5. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at VOI this 4th day of October 2016
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Miss Anyumba…………………….. for State
Muthami ..……………….for Accused person
Ruth Kituva– Court Clerk