[2023] KEHC 892 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 892 (KLR)

The court found that, upon consideration of the evidence tendered by the six prosecution witnesses, a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons. The evidence was sufficient to require the accused to be put on their defence, as a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 892 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Romano Nkarichia; Defendant: Domiano Mutabari; Defendant: Joseph Miritho
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Case 68 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to defend themselves.
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure, Case to Answer
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Murder Prima Facie Case Burden of Proof Criminal Procedure Case to Answer

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Romano Nkarichia

Defendant

Domiano Mutabari

Defendant

Joseph Miritho

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to warrant their being put on their defence.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution meets the threshold under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, upon consideration of the evidence tendered by the six prosecution witnesses, a prima facie case had been established against the accused persons. The evidence was sufficient to require the accused to be put on their defence, as a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict if no explanation was offered by the defence. The court applied the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R and section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that the prosecution must establish more than a mere scintilla of evidence and that the legal onus remains on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt....

Court Disposition

Accused persons found to have a case to answer and called upon to defend themselves.

Orders

  • Accused persons to proceed to their defence as provided under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.