[2019] KEHC 8587 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Bhatt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 8587 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Nicholas Atonye Lusala
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 72 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Criminal Procedure, Standard 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
Nicholas Atonye Lusala
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.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution meets the threshold set out in law for a case to answer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence through its witnesses to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Bhatt v R, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation was offered by the accused. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence to respond to the prosecution's case.
Court Disposition
accused put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
- The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 72 OF 2015
REPUBLIC……………………………………..……………STATE
VERSUS
NICHOLAS ATONYE LUSALA..…...………………ACCUSED
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
1. The Accused Person, Nicholas Atonye Lusala, is facing a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on the 15th day of May, 2011 at Ahero trading center in Nakuru North District within Nakuru County, murdered James Otieno Osedi (“Deceased”).
2. The Prosecution called five witnesses. The narrative emerging from the Prosecution case is that the Accused Person attacked the Deceased at a bar after he suspected that the Deceased’s friend was having an affair with his (Accused Person’s) girlfriend.
3. At this point in the case, the Court is required to make a finding whether the Prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to require the Accused Person to be put on his defence or whether the case should be stopped at this point. The test to be utilized is the famous one stated in Bhatt –vs- R [1957] EA 332:whether, as a matter of law – without taking any conclusive view of the credibility and probative value of the evidence presented – the Prosecution has adduced reasonable sufficient evidence of the matter in respect of which it has the burden of proof. Reasonable sufficient evidence is one which a reasonable tribunal could convict.
4. In my view, the Prosecution has placed enough material to make this a fit case to require the Accused Person to respond to the evidence adduced.
5. Consequently, the Court finds that the Accused Person has a case to answer and puts him on his defence.The case shall be set down for defence hearing.
Delivered at Nakuru this 28th day of March, 2019.
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE