[2021] KEHC 4024 (KLR)
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses, found that the evidence adduced establishes a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4024 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Martin Musiega
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 7 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused found to have a case to answer; to be put on his defence
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, No Case to Answer, 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
Martin Musiega
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No 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.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses, found that the evidence adduced establishes a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could convict on the evidence presented if the accused offered no explanation. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence to answer the charges.
Court Disposition
accused found to have a case to answer; to be put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and shall be put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7 OF 2018
REPUBLIC..................................................................................PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
MARTIN MUSIEGA..............................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. On 13th May 2021, the prosecution closed its case. The defence indicated that it would not submit at that stage, and invited the court to rule on a no case to answer based on the material on record. To that end I have gone through the record to assess whether or not the prosecution has established a prima facie case, sufficient to have accused person put on his defence.
2. I have gotten guidance from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R (1957) EA 332 (Sir Newham Worley P, Sir Ronald Sinclair VP and Bacon JA), where the court described a prima facie case as one in which a reasonable court, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict, if no explanation was offered by the defence. See also Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Geoffrey Mukonza Mwangangi [2018] eKLR (Ngenye-Macharia J), and Frankline Muthoka Mumo vs. Republic [2019] eKLR (Odunga J).
3. I have read through the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7, and I am persuaded that the prosecution has adduced evidence which establishes a prima facie case against the accused person, and I hereby find that the accused has a case to answer, and I shall, accordingly, be put him on his defence.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE