[2018] KEHC 7268 (KLR)
The court, applying the legal test for a prima facie case as articulated in RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R and section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, found that the prosecution's evidence, if left unexplained, would be sufficient to convict the accused. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence. This...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 7268 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Julius Karithi M’Mubwanga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 43 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer; ordered to enter defence.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Presumption of Innocence, Fair Trial Rights
- 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
Julius Karithi M’Mubwanga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the accused should be called upon to enter his defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, applying the legal test for a prima facie case as articulated in RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R and section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, found that the prosecution's evidence, if left unexplained, would be sufficient to convict the accused. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence. This process upholds the constitutional right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, ensuring that only cases with sufficient evidence proceed beyond the prosecution stage.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer; ordered to enter defence.
Orders
- The accused is informed of his right to address the court, give evidence on his own behalf, make an unsworn statement, and call witnesses in his defence.
- The accused or his advocate shall state to the court whether it is intended to call any witnesses other than the accused person himself.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO 43 OF 2014
REPUBLIC.................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JULIUS KARITHI M’MUBWANGA..............................ACCUSED
RULING
Case to answer: constitutional foundation
[1] Needless to state that the exercise of establishing whether or not prima facie case has been established against an accused person before he is called to enter upon his defence, is not merely a mundane ritual; it is an essential part of criminal trial, for it ensures that no one continues to stands trial unless there is a prima facie case established against him at the close of the prosecution case. The requirement is founded upon and guarantees the right to fair trial; and gives effect to the presumption of innocence of the accused at all stages of trial.See section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code:-
306. (1) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or any one of several accused committed the offence shall, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
(2) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is evidence that the accused person or any one or more of several accused persons committed the offence, shall inform each such accused person of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate (if any), to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence, and in all cases shall require him or his advocate (if any) to state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself; and upon being informed thereof, the judge shall record the fact.
(3) If the accused person says that he does not intend to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, then the advocate for the prosecution may sum up the case against the accused person; but if the accused person says that he intends to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, the court shall call upon him to enter upon his defence.
Prima facie case
[2] Of what prima facie case; we learnt this in early stages of university education. But, as I have stated, the subject is as important today as it ever was in criminal justice. Prima facie case is said to be:-
‘’…one which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence would convict if no explanation is offered by the defence’’. See RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R (1957) EA 332(CA)
[3] Applying the test of the law, and upon consideration of the evidence adduced, I find that there is prima facie case established against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is hereby informed of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate, to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence. Now the accused or his advocate shall state to the court whether it is intended to call any witnesses other than the accused person himself. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Meru this 6th day of February 2018
-------------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mrs.Mwathi for State
Mr. Omari advocate for Igweta advocate for the accused.
-------------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE