REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7 OF 2018 REPUBLIC..................................................................................PROSECUTIONS VERSUS MARTIN MUSIEGA..............................................................................ACCUSED RULING 1. On 13th May 2021, 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 (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). 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 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 W MUSYOKA JUDGE
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.