[2021] KEHC 4006 (KLR)
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses and considering the legal standard for a prima facie case as articulated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if left unchallenged, could result in a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4006 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Patrick Oita Nyapara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 20 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, No Case to Answer, 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
Patrick Oita Nyapara
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 sufficient to require him to be put on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses and considering the legal standard for a prima facie case as articulated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence which, if left unchallenged, could result in a conviction. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence to answer to the charges brought against him.
Court Disposition
accused put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is accordingly put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20 OF 2019
REPUBLIC.......................................................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
PATRICK OITA NYAPARA.....................................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. On 8th July 2021, the prosecution closed its case. The defence filed written submissions on a no case to answer. I have read through the said written submissions and noted the arguments made therein. I have also gone through the record, to assess whether or not the prosecution has established a prima facie case, sufficient to have accused person put on his defence.
2. I have gotten guidance from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R (1957) EA 332 (Sir Newham Worley P, Sir Ronald Sinclair VP and Bacon JA), where the court described a prima facie case as one in which a reasonable court, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict, if no explanation was offered by the defence. See also Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Geoffrey Mukonza Mwangangi [2018] eKLR (Ngenye-Macharia J) and Frankline Muthoka Mumo vs. Republic [2019] eKLR (Odunga J).
3. I have read through the testimonies of PW1 to PW20, and I am persuaded that the prosecution has adduced evidence which establishes a prima facie case against the accused person, and I hereby find that the accused has a case to answer, and I, accordingly, put him on his defence.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE