Case ID:165029

Republic v Oloishiro Ole Keiwa & another [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 8 of 2018

Parties:

Republic v Oloishiro Ole Keiwa & Kiterenga Keiwa

Date Delivered:

14 Oct 2020

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Narok

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Justus Momanyi Bwonwong'a

Citation:

Republic v Oloishiro Ole Keiwa & another [2020] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Narok

Case Outcome:

Accused put on his defence

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 OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8 OF 2018

REPUBLIC......................................................PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

OLOISHIRO OLE KEIWA..............................1

ST

ACCUSED

KITERENGA KEIWA........................................2

ND

ACCUSED

RULING

1. The issue before this court is whether the prosecution has established a

prima facie

against the accused to require him to be put on his defence in terms of section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya.

2. Mr. Nyaribo, counsel for the 1

st

accused has submitted that no

prima facie

has been established against the 1

st

accused. Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, counsel submitted that the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof to enable the court to put the 1

st

accused on his defence.

3. Mr. Yenko, counsel for the 2

nd

accused made a similar submission as Mr. Nyaribo, except for the following submissions. He has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove malice aforethought, in respect of which he cited

Bonaya Tutu Ipu &Another v Republic [2015] e-KLR,

amongst other authorities, in support of his submission. He has therefore urged the court to acquit the 2

nd

accused.

4. Ms Torosi for the prosecution has submitted that a

prima facie

has been made out to warrant both accused to be put on their defence. She cited the case of

Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] EA 332,

in which the Court of Appeal defined a

prima facie

as one in which “

A reasonable tribunal properly directly its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”

5. She also cited other cases in respect of circumstantial evidence including

Sawe v. Republic [2003] KLR 364

, among others, and urged the court to put both accused on their defence

6. I have considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the authorities cited by both counsel.

7. As a result, I find that a

prima facie

case has been made against both accused.

8. In the premises, I hereby put both accused on their defence.

Ruling signed Judgment signed, dated and delivered at Narok this 14

th

day of October, 2020 in the presence of both accused persons, Mr. Nyaribo for the 1

st

accused, Mr. Yenko for the 2

nd

accused and Ms. Torosi for the state.

J. M. BWONWONG’A.

J U D G E

14/10/2020