[2020] KEHC 6924 (KLR)
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses, found that the evidence adduced establishes 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, properly directing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 6924 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Wellington Shisiali
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 49 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- accused found to have a case to answer; to be 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
Wellington Shisiali
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, found that the evidence adduced establishes 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, properly directing itself, could convict on the evidence presented if no explanation is offered by the defence. Therefore, the accused is required to be put on his defence to answer to the charges.
Court Disposition
accused found to have a case to answer; to be put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and shall be put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 49 OF 2017
REPUBLIC......................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
WELLINGTON SHISIALI....................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. On 3rd February 2020, the prosecution closed its case. The defence indicated that it would not submit at that stage, and invited the court to rule on a no case to answer based on the material on record. To that end I have 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, 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 and Frankline Muthoka Mumo vs. Republic [2019] eKLR.
3. I have read through the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7, 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, be put him on his defence.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE