[2012] KEHC 5084 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused based on the evidence of eight prosecution witnesses. Applying the standard articulated in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R., the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5084 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Leonard Mutisya Mwanzia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 27 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be placed on his defence.
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, 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
Leonard Mutisya Mwanzia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused based on the evidence of eight prosecution witnesses. Applying the standard articulated in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R., the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused has a case to answer and is required to be placed on his defence, with full awareness of his statutory rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is placed on his defence.
- The accused is reminded of his rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to elect the manner of his defence and to call witnesses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO.27 OF 2006
REPUBLIC.................................................................. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
LEONARD MUTISYA MWANZIA..................................... ACCUSED
RULING
I have had the benefit of considering the prosecution case so far in the light of the evidence presented by its eight prosecution witnesses. The prosecution having closed its case, I am at this juncture only required to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence. What is required of the prosecution at this point in time is to establish a prima facie case against the accused as opposed to proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As articulated by Sir Newham Worley P. in the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt Vs. R.(1957) E.A. 332
“... the court is not required at this stage to decide finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit, or whether if believed it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively: that final determination can only properly be made when the case for the defence has been heard. It may not be easy to define what is meant by a“prima facie case”but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
To my mind, the prosecution has effectively discharged this burden.
In the end I find that the accused has a case to answer. He is reminded of his statutory rights under section 306(2) of the criminal procedure code, in that he can elect to give sworn or unsworn statements of defence or even keep quiet. If he elects to give a sworn statement of defence, he may be liable to cross-examination by the prosecution and not so if he elects to give unsworn statement of defence or even keep quiet. In all the above scenarios however, he is entitled to call witnesses.
I will now invite the accused to address me on how he intends to defend himself.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Machakos, this 15th day of February, 2012.
ASIKE-MAKHANDIA
JUDGE