[2019] KEHC 11110 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased alive and the subsequent conduct of the accused, established a prima facie case. This was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence, as the evidence could support a conviction if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Defendant: Lucas Githuka Gatiba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 37 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused put on his defence; prima facie case established.
- Judges
- J Wakiaga
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Respondent
Lucas Githuka Gatiba
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 require him to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence presented links the accused to the death of the deceased sufficiently at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased alive and the subsequent conduct of the accused, established a prima facie case. This was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence, as the evidence could support a conviction if no explanation was offered. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt or conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence, but only to assess whether there is enough evidence to call for an answer from the accused.
Court Disposition
Accused put on his defence; prima facie case established.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence under Section 306 and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused is advised of his rights under Article 50(2)(i)(k) and (l) of the Constitution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 37 OF 2013
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………..RESPONDENT
VERSUS
LUCAS GITHUKA GATIBA …………..……………………….….….ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code the particulars of which were that on the 14th day of February, 2013 at Kiganjo Location in Thika District within Kiambu County murdered LICKSON GATIBA.
2. He pleaded not guilty and to prove its case against him the prosecution called a total of five (5) witnesses and when denied further adjournment the prosecution closed its case and parties invited to make submissions on whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case to enable the court put the accused on his defence.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The prosecution opted not to make any submissions at this stage but relied upon evidence on record. On behalf of the defence it was submitted that the evidence tendered before the court did not establish that the accused intentionally caused the death of the minor as the evidence of PW1 does not with certainty show how the death occurred.
4. At this stage of the proceedings all that the court has to determine is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case to enable the court place the accused person on his defence. Prima facie case has been defined in the case of RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT v REPUBLIC (1957) EA 332 as follows:-
“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot argue that a prima facie case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction. This is perilously near suggesting that the court could not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case, nor can we argue that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is “some evidence irrespective of its credibility or weight sufficient to put the accused on his defence.”
A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence… It may not be easy to define what is meant by 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.” (Emphasis added)
5. In the case of REPUBLIC v JAGJIVAN M. PATEL & Others (1) TLR as follows:-
“All the court has to decide at the close of evidence of the charge is whether a case is made out against the accused just sufficiently to require him to make a defence, it may be a strong case or it may be a weak case. The court is not required at this stage to apply its mind in deciding finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit or whether, if believed, it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt. A ruling that there is a case to answer would be justified, in my opinion, in a borderline case where the court, though not satisfied as to conclusiveness of the prosecution evidence, is yet of opinion that the case made out is one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”(Emphasis added)
6. Justice J.B. Ojwang as he then was in the case of REPUBLIC v SAMUEL KARANJA KIRIA CR. CASE NO.13 OF 2004 NAIROBI [2009] eKLR had this to say on prima facie case:-
“The question at this stage is not whether or not the accused is guilty as charged but whether there is such cogent evidence of his connection with the circumstances in which the killing of the deceased occurred, that the concept of prima facie case dictates as a matter of law that an opportunity be created by this court for the accused to state his own case regarding the killing. The governing law on this point is well settled . . .
The Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2006, the Court of Appeal expressed that too detailed analysis of evidence, at no case to answer stage is undesirable if the court is going to put the accused onto his defence as too much details in the trial court’s ruling could then compromise the evidentiary quality of the defence to be mounted.” (Emphasis added).
7. With that in mind I have looked at the evidence of PW1 who put the accused and the deceased together with accused being the last person seen with the deceased alive, PW3 and PW5 on the conduct of the accused thereafter and come to conclusion that a prima facie case has been established to enable me put the accused on his defence which I hereby do. The accused is therefore advised on his rights under Section 306and 307the Criminal Procedure Codewhile guided by his Constitutional rights underArticle 50 (2)(i)(k)and(l).
Dated, delivered and signed at Nairobi this 26th day of February, 2019.
…………………………………….
J. WAKIAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Naulikha for the State
Mr. Mathenge for the accused
Accused present
Court assistant: Karwitha