REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6 OF 2017 REPUBLIC................................................................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS MATHEW KIPSEMON KULEI....................................................................ACCUSED RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER [1] This is a ruling on a case to answer pursuant to section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Counsel for the accused did not wish to make submissions on case to answer and the Counsel for the DPP relied on the evidence presented in the case. [2] The court is mindful of the relevant case-law authorities of Ramanalal Bhatt v. R. (1957) EA 332 and Murimi v. R (1967) EA 542 on the issue of principles governing the finding of a case to answer. [3] Having considered the evidence taken down by this court and, pursuant to section 200 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to evidence taken down by the previous court, this court takes the view that there is evidence upon which the court, in the words of Bhatt v. R, supra, may properly convict the accused for the offence charged “if no explanation is offered by the Defence” and, therefore, calls upon the accused to make his defence under section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. [4] The Defence hearing shall be scheduled on a convenient date in consultation with the accused and his counsel. Order accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020. EDWARD M. MURIITHI JUDGE Appearances: Mr. Chepkilot, Advocate for the Accused. Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Prosecution.
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.