[2012] KEHC 2644 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimonies of four witnesses, had established a prima facie case as defined in Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 334. This means that the evidence presented, if unchallenged, would be sufficient to justify a conviction. Consequently, the accused is required to be put on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2644 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Joshua Wano Matambo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 29 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence.
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Trial 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
Joshua Wano Matambo
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 putting him on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimonies of four witnesses, had established a prima facie case as defined in Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 334. This means that the evidence presented, if unchallenged, would be sufficient to justify a conviction. Consequently, the accused is required to be put on his defence to answer the charge.
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence to answer the charge.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL CASE 29 OF 2006
REPUBLIC.........................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JOSHUA WANO MATAMBO..................................................ACCUSED
RULING
Having considered the testimonies of the four (4) witnesses who were presented by the prosecution in support of the charge, I am satisfied that a prima facie case as defined in the case of Bhatt -Vs- Republic [1957] E.A. 334 has been demonstrated against the accused person for him to answer. I accordingly, put him on his defence.
Order accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT ELDORET
THIS 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
F.AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of:-
Mr. Chirchir for the State and
Mr. Obudho H/B for Kigamwa for the accused person.
F.AZANGALALA
JUDGE