Criminal Case 19 of 2019

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Criminal Case 19 of 2019
Parties:	Republic v Achala
Date Delivered:	02 Jun 2023
Case Class:
Court:	High Court at Eldoret
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Reuben Nyambati Nyakundi
Citation:	Republic v Achala (Criminal Case 19 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 17994 (KLR) (2 June 2023) (Ruling)
Court Division:	Criminal
County:	Uasin Gishu
Disclaimer:	The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

Republic v Achala (Criminal Case 19 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 17994 (KLR) (2 June 2023) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 17994 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Eldoret

Criminal Case 19 of 2019

RN Nyakundi, J

June 2, 2023

Between

Republic

Prosecution

and

David Siloba Achala

Accused

Ruling

1.The accused person was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. the particulars of the offence are that on February 26, 2019, at Kapsoya estate, within Uasin Gishu County, the accused person murdered Fiona Kisuya.

2.The question that this court has to deal with and answer at this stage is, whether based on the evidence before this Court, the Court after properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence may, as opposed to will, convict if the accused chose to give no evidence. In Ronald Nyaga Kiura vs Republic [2018] eKLR the court held as follows:'It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that a prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person. This is well illustrated in the cited Court of Appeal case of RAMANLAL BHAT -VS- REPUBLIC [1957] EA 332. At that stage of the proceedings the trial court does not concern itself to the standard of proof required to convict which is normally beyond reasonable doubt. The weight of the evidence however must be such that it is sufficient for the trial court to place the accused to his defence.'

3.Under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya, this court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling or a decision on whether an accused person has a case to answer or not. Under section 306(1), when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused person committed the offence should, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.

4.Having considered the material placed before me I am satisfied that the prosecution has established a prima facie case for the purposes of a finding that the accused has a case to answer. As to whether the said evidence on record meet the threshold for convicting the accused is a matter that will have to be considered at the end of the trial.I accordingly place the accused on his defence.

DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL DATED AND SIGNED AT ELDORET ON THIS 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2023……………………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGEmarkmugun@gmail.com, wakigamwa@yahoo.com

cr. no. 19 of 2019

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Case Search

Criminal Case 19 of 2019

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options