[2019] KEHC 3286 (KLR)
Upon reviewing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 3286 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Muhati Ondusi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 59 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
- Outcome
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, 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
Peter Muhati Ondusi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on 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
Upon reviewing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the court determined that a reasonable tribunal could convict the accused if no explanation was offered. Therefore, the accused is found to have a case to answer and is accordingly put on his defence.
Court Disposition
The accused is found to have a case to answer and is put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused shall be 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. 59 OF 2009
REPUBLIC........................................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
PETER MUHATI ONDUSI......................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. Although I had allocated this matter a date for judgement, I have gone through the record and established that it ought to come up for a ruling on whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case, sufficient to have accused should be put on his defence.
2. I have guidance from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R (1957) EA 332, where the court describes a prima facie case as one in which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict, if no explanation was offered by the defence. Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Geoffrey Mukonza Mwangangi [2018] eKLR and Frankline Muthoka Mumo vs. Republic [2019] eKLR are in similar vein.
3. I have gone through the record before me, principally the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, 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 shall, accordingly, put him on his defence.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE