[2022] KEHC 1945 (KLR)
The court, after reviewing the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses and the submissions by the defence, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the legal standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 1945 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: William Ameka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 41 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No 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, 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
William Ameka
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 and the submissions by the defence, found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Applying the legal standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R and subsequent authorities, the court held that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could convict on the evidence presented if the accused offered no explanation. 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 shall be put on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 41 OF 2017
REPUBLIC....................................................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
VERSUS
WILLIAM AMEKA.............................................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. On 7th December 2021, the prosecution closed its case. The defence indicated that it would file written submissions on a no case to answer based on the material on record. The written submissions were filed on 10th February 2021. I have read through them and noted the arguments made.
2. 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.
3. I have gotten guidance from Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. R (1957) EA 332 (Sir Newham Worley P, Sir Ronald Sinclair VP and Bacon JA), 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 (Ngenye-Macharia J), and Frankline Muthoka Mumo vs. Republic [2019] eKLR (Odunga J).
4. I have read through the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8, 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 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE
MR. ERICK ZALO, COURT ASSISTANT.
MR. OTSYENO, INSTRUCTED BY MESSRS. EK OWINYI & COMPANY, ADVOCATES, FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON.
MR. MWANGI, INSTRUCTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, FOR THE REPUBLIC.