[2011] KEHC 950 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, when considered in its entirety, met the threshold of a prima facie case as defined in Bhatt v Republic. The judge emphasized that at this stage, the court is not required to determine the credibility or conclusiveness of the evidence, but only whether it is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 950 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Stephen Toroitich Chemaiyo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 11 of 2008
- 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.
- 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
Stephen Toroitich Chemaiyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, when considered in its entirety, met the threshold of a prima facie case as defined in Bhatt v Republic. The judge emphasized that at this stage, the court is not required to determine the credibility or conclusiveness of the evidence, but only whether it is sufficient to require the accused to answer. Consequently, the accused was found to have a case to answer and was 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 is put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11 OF 2008
REPUBLIC...................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STEPHEN TOROITICH CHEMAIYO....................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
In the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt -Vs- Republic [1957] E.A 332, a prima facie case was defined as 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. At this stage, the court is not required 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.
I have considered the evidence which the prosecution has adduced in this case and I am satisfied that the same has demonstrated a prima facie case against the accused as defined in Bhatt -Vs- Republic [supra]. The accused in the other words has a case to answer and is put on his defence.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORETTHIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of :-
Mr. Kabaka for the State and
Mr. Okara for the Accused.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
7TH DECEMBER, 2011.