[2018] KEHC 6144 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if believed, could support a conviction. Applying the test in Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6144 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: James Mwaniki Giciriri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 61 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- case to answer found; accused put on his defence
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case
- 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
James Mwaniki Giciriri
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring the accused to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to warrant the accused to answer to the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if believed, could support a conviction. Applying the test in Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence to respond to the charge of murder.
Court Disposition
case to answer found; accused put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
- The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 61 OF 2016
REPUBLIC................................................STATE
VS
JAMES MWANIKI GICIRIRI...........ACCUSED
RULING ON NO CASETO ANSWER
1. The Accused Person, James Mwaniki Giciriri (“Accused Person”) is charged with murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. He is accused of murdering John Kamau Wainaina (“Deceased”) on 23/10/2016 at Kivumbini area in Nakuru East Sub-County within Nakuru County.
2. The Prosecution called six witnesses to prove its case. The narrative emerging from the Prosecution witnesses is that the Accused Person suspected the Deceased of having an affair with his estranged wife. In a murderous rage, he attacked the Deceased with a knife inflicting a fatal stab wound. At least one Prosecution witness testified that he saw the Accused Person fleeing the scene after the stabbing. Other witnesses gave contextual and supplemental evidence.
3. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court is required to make a finding whether the Prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the Accused Person to be put on his defence or whether the case should be stopped at this point. The test to be utilized is the famous one stated in Bhatt –vs- R [1957] EA 332:whether, as a matter of law – without taking any conclusive view of the credibility and probative value of the evidence presented – the Prosecution has adduced reasonable sufficient evidence of the matter in respect of which it has the burden of proof. Reasonable sufficient evidence is one which a reasonable tribunal could convict.
4. In my view, the Prosecution has placed enough material to make this a fit case to require the Accused Person to respond to the evidence adduced.
5. Consequently, the Court finds that the Accused Person has a case to answer and puts him on his defence.The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Delivered at Nakuru this 21st day of June, 2018.
.........................................
(PROF). JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE