[2021] KEHC 7226 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced some evidence which, if accepted and taken at its highest, would entitle the court to convict the accused persons. The threshold for a prima facie case was met, as the evidence was not so unsatisfactory, contradictory, or transparently unreliable as to preclude a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7226 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Kesue Ole Sururu; Defendant: Lanoi Ole Simpri; Defendant: Daniel Nkuito Tiapukel; Defendant: Raya Dapash
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 105 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- The accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, 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
Kesue Ole Sururu
Defendant
Lanoi Ole Simpri
Defendant
Daniel Nkuito Tiapukel
Defendant
Raya Dapash
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant putting them on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if taken at its highest, could sustain a conviction for murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced some evidence which, if accepted and taken at its highest, would entitle the court to convict the accused persons. The threshold for a prima facie case was met, as the evidence was not so unsatisfactory, contradictory, or transparently unreliable as to preclude a conviction. Therefore, the accused persons were found to have a case to answer and were put on their defence.
Court Disposition
The accused persons are found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
Orders
- Each of the four accused persons is found to have a case to answer and is put on their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 105 OF 2014
REPUBLIC.....................................................................................................STATE
VERSUS
KESUE OLE SURURU...................................................................1ST ACCUSED
LANOI OLE SIMPRI.....................................................................2ND ACCUSED
DANIEL NKUITO TIAPUKEL.....................................................3RD ACCUSED
RAYA DAPASH.................................................................................4TH ACCUSED
RULING
1. The four Accused Persons, Kesue Ole Sururu (“1st Accused Person”); Lanoi Ole Simpri (“2nd Accused Person”); Daniel Nkuito Tiapukel (“3rd Accused Person”) and Raya Dapash (“4th Accused Person”), are jointly charged together with others not before the Court, with murder contrary to section 203 as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on the 9th day of October, 2014 at Muthera farm in Njoro Sub County within Nakuru County, they, jointly with others not before Court, murdered KOITUNE OLE KESHE (Deceased).
2. The Prosecution called ten (10) witnesses in its bid to prove its case. The general theory of the case was that the Accused Persons were part of a group that attacked the Deceased apparently in in retaliation of land dispute pitting their respective employers. At least one witness claimed to have witnessed the attack
3. The Court’s singular task at this point in the proceedings is to make a determination whether the Accused Persons should be put on their defence. The test to be used at this point in the trial is the test for prima facie case long ago established in the celebrated case, Bhatt –vs- R [1957] EA 332. It was held in that case that a prima facie case is not made out if at the close of the Prosecution the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.
4. So, to paraphrase the authorities, a prima facie case is defined in the negative: A prima facie case is not established if at the end of the Prosecution case there is no evidence upon which, if the evidence, taken at its highest, is accepted, a reasonable court could convict. (See R v Galbraith 73 Cr. App. R. 124).
5. At this point in the case, it would be improper to assess the strength or weakness of the prosecution evidence by taking a view of the witness reliability unless I came to the conclusion that the state of the evidence called by the Prosecution, taken as a whole, is so unsatisfactory, contradictory, or so transparently unreliable that no court, properly directing its mind, could properly convict on the evidence. In my view, this forbiddingly high threshold is not met here, since there is some evidence which, if accepted and
“taken at its highest”, would entitle the Court to convict. At this point, the less I say, the better.
6. The upshot is that the four Accused Persons are, consequently, found to have a case to answer and are each put on their defence.
7. Orders accordingly.
DATED AT NAKURU THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
........................
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE