[2024] KEHC 16139 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the principle from Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, the court determined that if the evidence presented by the prosecution were left unchallenged, it could support...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 16139 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Julius Kipkemboi Kiplangat
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 24 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence.
- Judges
- JM Nang'ea
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Right to Silence
- 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 Kipkemboi Kiplangat
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 to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced, if uncontroverted, would justify a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the principle from Ramanlal T. Bhatt v Republic, the court determined that if the evidence presented by the prosecution were left unchallenged, it could support a conviction. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to give detailed reasons for its finding to avoid prejudicing the defence. Consequently, the accused was put on his defence in accordance with established judicial practice.
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is hereby put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Republic v Kiplangat (Criminal Case 24 of 2020) [2024] KEHC 16139 (KLR) (19 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16139 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Case 24 of 2020
JM Nang'ea, J
December 19, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Julius Kipkemboi Kiplangat
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused is charged with Murder Contary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence state that on 9th May 2020 at Upper Rongai Village in Ol-Rongai Location, Rongai Sub-County, within Nakuru County he murdered William Kipkemboi Tomno. The accused entered plea of “Not Guilty”.
2. I have perused the evidence adduced by witnesses for the prosecution and note that the defence Counsel chose not to offer Submissons “on no case to answer”. At this stage, the prosecution is required to make out a prima facie case warranting putting of the accused on his defence. In the famous case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt vs Republic, a prima facie case was defined as one in which the court could convict if no defence is offered by the accused. That is not to say, however, that the court will be prepared to convit in every case where the accused fails to give defence. The decision of the court depends on the facts and circumstances of each case while taking into account that the accused has the Constitutional right to remain silent.
3. Having so observed, I find that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case and the accused is hereby put on his defence. It is established Judicial practice that no reasons ought to be given for such decision so that an impression is not created that the court has already made up its mind before hearing the defence case.
4. Ruling accordingly.
J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.RULING DELIVERED THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 IN THE PRESENCE OF:The state, Ms SangThe Court Assistant, LepikasAccused, presentJ. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.