[2022] KEHC 15008 (KLR)
The court, after considering the evidence of the 10 prosecution witnesses and the submissions of both parties, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15008 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Richard Mangi Mugo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 13 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, 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
Richard Mangi Mugo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Prosecution Case
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 considering the evidence of the 10 prosecution witnesses and the submissions of both parties, found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation was offered by the defence. Consequently, the accused was found to have a case to answer and was placed on his defence under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is placed on his defence under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Date for defence hearing to be fixed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
Republic v Mugo (Criminal Case 13 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 15008 (KLR) (Crim) (9 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15008 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Case 13 of 2019
DO Ogembo, J
November 9, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Richard Mangi Mugo
Accused
Ruling
1. I have considered the evidence of the 10 prosecution witnesses. I have also considered the submissions filed herein by both the prosecution and the defence sides. This court is guided by the decision in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhaff versus Republic (1957)EA, 332, that,“It may not be easy to define what is meant by a “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.”
2. I am in the circumstances convinced that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused. I accordingly find that the accused has a case to answer and I place him to his own defence under section 211 of the criminal procedure code.
D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE9TH NOVEMBER, 2022. Court:Ruling read out in open court in the presence of the accused, Mr. Ogado for accused and Ms. Kimani for the stateD. O. OGEMBOJUDGE9th NOVEMBER, 2022. Court:Date of defence to be given. Directions on section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be given on the date fixed for defence. Defence hearing 22. 2.2023.