REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET CRIMINAL CASE NO. 61 OF 2017 REPUBLIC..................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS DANIEL KIPKURUI KIBOWEN........................ACCUSED RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER 1. Upon considering the evidence presented herein by the Prosecution and the written submissions dated 23 rd April 2020 thereon by Counsel for the Accused, without exhaustive discussion of the merits so as not to prejudice the fair trial of the case as counseled by Kibera Karimi v. R (1979) KLR 36, and Festo Wandera Mukando v. R (1976 – 80) KLR 1626, and having considered as held in KBT HCCRC No. 13 of 2017, that – “A trial Court is under a duty, as held by the Court of Appeal in Murimi v. R (1967) EA 542, to acquit an accused if the Prosecution “failed to make out a case sufficient to require the accused to enter a defence” and further that such a case is made out when a prima facie case is established being “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.” See Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R (1957) EA 332, 335” I find that the Prosecution has established a prima facie case. 2. Consequently, the accused shall be put on his defence in accordance with section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and his rights thereunder shall be explained to him. Order accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020. EDWARD M. MURIITHI JUDGE Appearances: M/S Mbeche & Co. Advocates for the Appellant. Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Respondent.
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.