[2020] KEHC 2447 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against both accused persons under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court considered the submissions of both defence counsel, who argued that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2447 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Oloishiro Ole Keiwa; Defendant: Kiterenga Keiwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 8 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case Under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- Both accused are put on their defence.
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Malice Aforethought, Circumstantial Evidence
- 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
Oloishiro Ole Keiwa
Defendant
Kiterenga Keiwa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case Under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to require them to be put on their defence under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has proved malice aforethought against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against both accused persons under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court considered the submissions of both defence counsel, who argued that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof and had not established malice aforethought. However, the court was persuaded by the prosecution's reliance on the definition of a prima facie case as set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R and the authorities on circumstantial evidence. The court concluded that, based on the evidence and the legal standards, both accused should be put on their defence to answer the charges.
Court Disposition
Both accused are put on their defence.
Orders
- Both accused are hereby put on their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8 OF 2018
REPUBLIC......................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
OLOISHIRO OLE KEIWA..............................1STACCUSED
KITERENGA KEIWA........................................2NDACCUSED
RULING
1. The issue before this court is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie against the accused to require him to be put on his defence in terms of section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya.
2. Mr. Nyaribo, counsel for the 1st accused has submitted that no prima facie has been established against the 1st accused. Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, counsel submitted that the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof to enable the court to put the 1st accused on his defence.
3. Mr. Yenko, counsel for the 2nd accused made a similar submission as Mr. Nyaribo, except for the following submissions. He has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove malice aforethought, in respect of which he cited Bonaya Tutu Ipu &Another v Republic [2015] e-KLR, amongst other authorities, in support of his submission. He has therefore urged the court to acquit the 2nd accused.
4. Ms Torosi for the prosecution has submitted that a prima facie has been made out to warrant both accused to be put on their defence. She cited the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] EA 332, in which the Court of Appeal defined aprima facieas one in which “A reasonable tribunal properly directly its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
5. She also cited other cases in respect of circumstantial evidence including Sawe v. Republic [2003] KLR 364, among others, and urged the court to put both accused on their defence
6. I have considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the authorities cited by both counsel.
7. As a result, I find that a prima facie case has been made against both accused.
8. In the premises, I hereby put both accused on their defence.
Ruling signed Judgment signed, dated and delivered at Narok this 14th day of October, 2020 in the presence of both accused persons, Mr. Nyaribo for the 1st accused, Mr. Yenko for the 2nd accused and Ms. Torosi for the state.
J. M. BWONWONG’A.
J U D G E
14/10/2020