[2018] KEHC 3775 (KLR)
The court, after carefully scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Bhatt v R and the procedure under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3775 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Moses Kanyili Alias Jackson Kirimi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 14 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused placed on his defence; prosecution established a prima facie case.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, 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
Moses Kanyili Alias Jackson Kirimi
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 being placed on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced, if uncontroverted, would justify a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after carefully scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Bhatt v R and the procedure under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court determined that the evidence, if uncontroverted, would justify a conviction. Consequently, the accused was placed on his defence and informed of his rights under the law to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, and call witnesses.
Court Disposition
Accused placed on his defence; prosecution established a prima facie case.
Orders
- The accused is hereby placed on his defence.
- The accused has been informed of his right to address the court, give evidence, make an unsworn statement, and call witnesses in his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO.14 OF 2010
REPUBLIC.............................................................................PROSECUTOR
Versus
MOSES KANYILI Alias JACKSON KIRIMI.............................ACCUSED
RULING
Case to answer
[1] The accused person id facing a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code CAP 63 of the Laws of Kenya. The prosecution closed its case on 10th July 2018 after calling 6 witnesses. Counsel for the State and Defence intimated to court that they will not make summing up submissions. The question that falls for determination is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence. This is what is called in legal sphere prima facie case. On this see Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code wich provides that:-
306. (1) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or any one of several accused committed the offence shall, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.
(2) When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is evidence that the accused person or any one or more of several accused persons committed the offence, shall inform each such accused person of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate (if any), to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence, and in all cases shall require him or his advocate (if any) to state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself; and upon being informed thereof, the judge shall record the fact.
(3) If the accused person says that he does not intend to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, then the advocate for the prosecution may sum up the case against the accused person; but if the accused person says that he intends to give evidence or make an unsworn statement, or to adduce evidence, the court shall call upon him to enter upon his defence.
[2] APrima facie case has been said to be;
‘’…one which a reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence would convict if no explanation is offered by the defence’’. See RAMANLAL BHATT vs. R (1957) EA 332(CA)
[3] I have, with judicious alertness and care, scrutinized the evidence adduced and I am satisfied the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is hereby placed on his defence. The accused person has been duly informed of his right to address the court, either personally or by his advocate, to give evidence on his own behalf, or to make an unsworn statement, and to call witnesses in his defence. The accused or his advocate is required to state whether it is intended to call any witnesses as to fact other than the accused person himself. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Meru this 27th day of September 2018
---------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
M/s. Nelima for accused
Mr. Namiti for State
Accused - present
---------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE