[2025] KEHC 3011 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the stabbing, to establish a prima facie case. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3011 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Jackson Sitienei Namon
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E011 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- The court found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused and ordered him to be placed on his defence.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Trial 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
Applicant
Jackson Sitienei Namon
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to require him to be placed on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including eyewitness identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the stabbing, to establish a prima facie case. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused is required to be placed on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
The court found that a prima facie case had been established against the accused and ordered him to be placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is placed on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Namon (Criminal Case E011 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 3011 (KLR) (13 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3011 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyahururu
Criminal Case E011 of 2022
LN Mutende, J
March 13, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Jackson Sitienei Namon
Accused
Ruling
1. Jackson Sitienei Namon, the Accused, was at a drinking den when one of the revellers was stabbed and he was identified as the culprit hence his arrest.
2. At this point, this court is required to establish if a prima facie case has been established requiring the accused to be placed on his defence. In the celebrated case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt -Vs- Republic [1957] E.A 332, it was stated that:“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.”ii.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 mine).
3. Looking at crucial evidence on record, eye witnesses pointed at the accused as the one responsible for the crime.
4. Therefore, I am satisfied that the prosecution has demonstrated a prima facie case against the accused as defined in the case of Bhatt v Republic (supra), that requires him to address the court in his defence in compliance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. ……………………L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE