[2021] KEHC 5627 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if left unchallenged, could result in a conviction. Therefore, both accused persons have a case to answer and are required to present their defence as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court refrained from...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5627 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Lohorere Kelvin; Defendant: Mukooli Jackson
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 1 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Both accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to present their defence.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, 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
Lohorere Kelvin
Defendant
Mukooli Jackson
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 to require the accused persons to be put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if unchallenged, would warrant a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if left unchallenged, could result in a conviction. Therefore, both accused persons have a case to answer and are required to present their defence as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court refrained from making definitive findings at this stage, in line with established judicial practice, and simply ruled that the accused must be put on their defence.
Court Disposition
Both accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to present their defence.
Orders
- Both accused are informed of their right to address the court, give evidence, make unsworn statements, or call witnesses in their defence as per Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Accused to make their election on how to present their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1 OF 2017
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC....................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
1. LOHORERE KELVIN
2. MUKOOLI JACKSON................................................................... ACCUSEDS
RULING
1. The two accused persons, LOHOREKE KELVINand MUKOOLI JACKSONwere charged in this case with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The both pleaded not guilty.
2. The prosecution called 13 witnesses and closed the case. That set in motion this Court’s consideration of whether the two accused have a case to answer as provided under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap. 75.
3. In the case REPUBLIC VS. JOSEPH SHITANDI & ANOTHER (2014) eKLR, it termed a case to answer as:-
“A case to answer is a case where if the accused keeps quiet, the evidence of the prosecution should be such that a conviction will result.”
4. While deciding whether there is a case to answer, the court is not required to make definite finding, especially where the court finds there is a case to answer. This indeed was so stated in the case REPUBLIC VS. JOES MUTUA ANTHONY & 3 OTHERS (2019 eKLR as follows:-
“That there is a danger in making definitive findings at this stage, especially where the Court finds that there is a case to answer is not farfetched and the reasons for not doing so are obvious. As was appreciated byTrevelyan and Chesoni, JJinFESTO WANDERA MUKANDO VS. THE REPUBLIC [1980]KLR 103:
“…we once more draw attention to the inadvisability of giving reasons for holding that an accused has a case to answer. It can prove embarrassing to the court and, in an extreme case, may require an appellate court to set aside an otherwise sound judgment. Where a submission of “no case” is rejected, the court should say no more than that it is. It is otherwise where the submission is upheld when reasons should be given; for then that is the end to the case or the count or counts concerned.”
5. At the close of the prosecution’s case, if the court is satisfied the prosecution’s evidence cannot lead to a conviction, the court should acquit the accused. If however the prosecution’s evidence suffices the accused should be called to defend himself.
6. In this case, I am satisfied that the evidence of the prosecution suffices to call upon both accused to defend themselves. Having reached that decision, as per Section 306(2) of Cap 75 both accused are hereby informed that they have a right to address the court, either personally or by their advocate and to give evidence on their own behalf or to make unsworn statement and call witnesses in their defence.
7. The accused are now called upon to make their election on how they shall present their defence.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2021.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram:
Court Assistant: Ndege
1ST Accused: present
2nd Accused: Present
For 1st Accused: Mr. Wakaba
For 2nd Accused: Mr. Wakaba holding brief for Kiung
For DPP: Ms. Kathambi
COURT
RULING delivered virtually.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE