[2018] KEHC 2110 (KLR)
The court, after reviewing the evidence of five prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the test from Bhatt v R and section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 2110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: John Ng’ang’a Njeri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 73 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, 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
John Ng’ang’a Njeri
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution meets the threshold under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after reviewing the evidence of five prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the test from Bhatt v R and section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented. Therefore, the accused is required to respond to the prosecution's case and is put on his defence.
Court Disposition
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 KIAMBU
CRIMINAL NO 73 OF 2016
REPUBLIC...................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JOHN NG’ANG’A NJERI.................................ACCUSED PERSON
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. The Accused Person is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on the night of 24/02/2013 at Mwemuto Village in Gatundu South within Kiambu County, jointly with another not before the Court, the Accused Person unlawfully, and with pre-meditation killed Joseph Njau Njoroge.
2. The Accused Person pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. The Prosecution called five witnesses before closing its case. Neither the Defence nor the Prosecution made submissions on No Case to Answer Ruling.
3. At this stage in the proceedings, the task of the Court is 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, after reviewing the evidence presented by the five Prosecution witnesses, I am persuaded that 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 Kiambu this 22nd day of November, 2018.
……………………………………
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE