[2020] KEHC 1284 (KLR)
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and guided by the principles in Ramanlal Bhatt v. R. and Murimi v. R., found that there is sufficient evidence upon which the accused could be convicted if no explanation is offered by the defence. Accordingly, the court ruled that the accused has...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1284 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Mathew Kipsemon Kulei
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kabarnet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 6 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer; ordered to make his defence.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Case to Answer, Criminal Procedure Code Section 306, Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Mathew Kipsemon Kulei
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is sufficient evidence to require the accused to make a defence under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and guided by the principles in Ramanlal Bhatt v. R. and Murimi v. R., found that there is sufficient evidence upon which the accused could be convicted if no explanation is offered by the defence. Accordingly, the court ruled that the accused has a case to answer and is required to make his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer; ordered to make his defence.
Orders
- The accused is called upon to make his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The defence hearing shall be scheduled on a convenient date in consultation with the accused and his counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6 OF 2017
REPUBLIC................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MATHEW KIPSEMON KULEI....................................................................ACCUSED
RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER
[1] This is a ruling on a case to answer pursuant to section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Counsel for the accused did not wish to make submissions on case to answer and the Counsel for the DPP relied on the evidence presented in the case.
[2] The court is mindful of the relevant case-law authorities of Ramanalal Bhatt v. R. (1957) EA 332 and Murimi v. R (1967) EA 542 on the issue of principles governing the finding of a case to answer.
[3] Having considered the evidence taken down by this court and, pursuant to section 200 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to evidence taken down by the previous court, this court takes the view that there is evidence upon which the court, in the words of Bhatt v. R, supra, may properly convict the accused for the offence charged“if no explanation is offered by the Defence” and, therefore, calls upon the accused to make his defence under section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
[4] The Defence hearing shall be scheduled on a convenient date in consultation with the accused and his counsel.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020.
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances:
Mr. Chepkilot, Advocate for the Accused.
Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Prosecution.