Case ID:167350

Republic v Mathew Kipsemon Kulei [2020] eLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 6 of 2017

Parties:

Republic v Mathew Kipsemon Kulei

Date Delivered:

24 Nov 2020

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Kabarnet

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Edward Muthoga Muriithi

Citation:

Republic v Mathew Kipsemon Kulei [2020] eLR

Advocates:

Mr. Chepkilot, Advocate for the Accused.

Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Prosecution

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Baringo

Advocates:

Mr. Chepkilot, Advocate for the Accused.

Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Prosecution

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

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 KABARNET

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6 OF 2017

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

VERSUS

MATHEW KIPSEMON KULEI....................................................................ACCUSED

RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER

[1] This is a ruling on a case to answer pursuant to section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Counsel for the accused did not wish to make submissions on case to answer and the Counsel for the DPP relied on the evidence presented in the case.

[2] The court is mindful of the relevant case-law authorities of

Ramanalal Bhatt v. R.

(1957) EA 332 and

Murimi v. R

(1967) EA 542 on the issue of principles governing the finding of a case to answer.

[3] Having considered the evidence taken down by this court and, pursuant to section 200 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to evidence taken down by the previous court, this court takes the view that there is evidence upon which the court, in the words of

Bhatt v. R

, supra, may properly convict the accused for the offence charged

“if no explanation is offered by the Defence”

and, therefore, calls upon the accused to make his defence under section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

[4] The Defence hearing shall be scheduled on a convenient date in consultation with the accused and his counsel.

Order accordingly.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 24

TH

DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020.

EDWARD M. MURIITHI

JUDGE

Appearances:

Mr. Chepkilot, Advocate for the Accused.

Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Prosecution.