Republic v Musyala (Criminal Case 21B of 2017) [2022] KEHC 3164 (KLR) (28 June 2022) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 3164 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MAKUENI CRIMINAL CASE 21B OF 2017 GMA DULU, J JUNE 28, 2022 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND JOSEPH MUSYOKA MUSYALA ................................................................. ACCUSED RULING 1. Having considered the evidence of the prosecution on record, and taking into account the reasoning in the case of Ramanlal Bhatt v R [1957] E.A 322 that an accused person can be put on his/her defence only when a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution, as well as the submissions herein of counsel for the accused person, I am of the view that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused person herein, based on the evidence on record. 2. This is bearing in mind that a prima facie case is simply a case, as explained by the court in R. Bhatt v R (supra) is evidence where a reasonable court, taking into account the evidence on record and the accused not rendering any evidence in defence, may convict. The standard thus for establishing a prima facie case is much lower, than proof beyond any reasonable doubt. 3. Having found that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused person herein, he has a case to answer, and I proceed to put him on his defence, and will thus explain to him the options available in his defence under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap.75). DELIVERED, SIGNED & DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022, IN OPEN COURT AT MAKUENI. ………………………………. George Dulu Judge https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2022/3164/eng@2022-06-28 1
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.