[2012] KEHC 5128 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, having called six witnesses and presented its evidence, had established a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5128 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Stephen Wambua Mutisya; Defendant: Peter Muia Mutisya; Defendant: Stephen Kiilu Kituku alias Njoro
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 19 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- accused put on their defence; case to answer found
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, 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
Stephen Wambua Mutisya
Defendant
Peter Muia Mutisya
Defendant
Stephen Kiilu Kituku alias Njoro
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant them being put on their defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, having called six witnesses and presented its evidence, had established a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence of murder. Applying the test from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. Republic, the court held that a reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation was offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused were found to have a case to answer and were accordingly put on their defence, with the options under law for how to proceed in their defence explained to them.
Court Disposition
accused put on their defence; case to answer found
Orders
- The accused are found to have a case to answer and are put on their defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 19 OF 2011
REPUBLIC .................................................................................................. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STEPHEN WAMBUA MUTISYA ....................................................................... 1ST ACCUSED
PETER MUIA MUTISYA ................................................................................... 2ND ACCUSED
STEPHEN KIILU KITUKU ALIAS NJORO......................................................... 3RD ACCUSED
RULING
The accused were charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code, particulars being that on 12th March, 2011 at Miu Village, Kivaani Location, in Kangundo District within Eastern Province, they murdered Peter Maluki Nzuki.
In a bid to prove its prima facie case against the accused, the prosecution called a total of six witnesses before closing its case. The question for determination at this stage is whether that evidence discloses a prima facie case against the accused to warrant them being placed on their defence. As stated in the celebrated case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt Vs. Republic (1957) E.A. 332, a prima case is one:
“A reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence ....”.
Having reviewed the evidence so far tendered by the prosecution, I am satisfied that the prosecution has met the threshold set out in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt (supra). Accordingly the accused have a case to answer. I now proceed to put them on their defence.
Under the law they have three choices in their defence. They can be sworn in which event they will be liable to cross-examination by the prosecution. They may elect to make unsworn statement in which case, they will not be liable to cross-examination. Finally, they may elect to keep quiet. In all the above choices, they are nonetheless entitled to call witnesses. I will now invite the accused to tell me the manner of their defence.
Ruling dated, signed and deliveredin Machakos this 15thday of March, 2012.
ASIKE-MAKHANDIA
JUDGE