[2012] KEHC 5754 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of establishing a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the test articulated in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R., the evidence presented was such that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5754 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Philip Mutia Kasee
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 41 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Prosecution Closes Its Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer; to be placed on his defence.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Prima Facie Case, Case to Answer, Criminal Procedure, Burden 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
Philip Mutia Kasee
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Prosecution Closes Its Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of establishing a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the test articulated in Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R., the evidence presented was such that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself to the law and evidence, could convict the accused if no explanation was offered. Consequently, the accused was found to have a case to answer and was invited to elect how to proceed with his defence, in accordance with his statutory rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer; to be placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is invited to address the court on how he intends to defend himself, pursuant to section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
Criminal Case 41 of 2009
REPUBLIC..........................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PHILIP MUTIA KASEE .............................................ACCUSED
RULING
I have had the benefit of considering the prosecution case so far in the light of the evidence presented by its prosecution witnesses. I have also read and considered carefully rival written submissions on record. The prosecution having closed its case, I am at this juncture only required to determine if prosecution has established a prima faciecase against the accused to warrant him being placed on his defence. What is required of the prosecution at this juncture is to establish a prima facie case against the accused as opposed to proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As articulated by Sir Newham Worley P. in the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt Vs. R.(1957) E.A. 332
“... the court is not required at this stage to decide finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit, or whether if believed it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively: that final determination can only properly be made when the case for the defence has been heard. It may not be easy to define what is meant by a“prima facie case”but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
To my mind, the prosecution has effectively discharged this burden of making out a prima facie case against the accused.
In the end I find that the accused has a case to answer. He is reminded of his statutory rights under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in that he can elect to give sworn or unsworn statement of defence or even keep quiet. If she elects to give a sworn statement of defence, he may be liable to cross-examination by the prosecution and not so if he elects to give unsworn statement of defence or even keep quiet. In all the above respects however, she is entitled to call witnesses.
I will now invite the accused to address me on how he intends to defend himself.
RULING DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MACHAKOS, this 30TH day of JULY 2012.
ASIKE - MAKHANDIA
JUDGE