Case ID:170014

Republic v Dickson Kimutai Koech & another [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 10 of 2018

Parties:

Republic v Dickson Kimutai Koech & Philip Kibet Langat

Date Delivered:

26 Jan 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Bomet

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Roseline Lagat-Korir

Citation:

Republic v Dickson Kimutai Koech & another [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Bomet

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

REPUBLC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT BOMET

CRIMINAL CASE NO.10 OF 2018

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

VERSUS

DICKSON KIMUTAI KOECH........1

ND

ACCUSED

PHILIP KIBET LANGAT..................2

ND

ACCUSED

RULING

1. The 1

st

and 2

nd

Accused persons are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence are that on the 19

th

day of June, 2018 at Kaptebengwet location in Konoin District within Bomet County jointly with others not before court murdered Julius Otieno.

2. Both Accused took plea before Muya J on 12

th

July, 2018 and denied the charge. Their trial commenced on 2

nd

October, 2018 and Muya J heard 2 witnesses. Subsequently, the case proceeded before Dulu J who heard 3 witnesses before I took over the case and heard the last 3 prosecution witnesses.

3. At the close of the prosecution case, both the prosecution and the defence filed respective submissions on case or no case to answer. I have carefully considered the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and the submissions on record. In so doing, I have borne in mind the provisions of section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and what constitutes a prima facie case.

4. In defining a prima facie case, the Court of Appeal in

Anthony Njue Njeru –vs- Republic (2006) eKLR

cited with approval

RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT V R

[1957] E.A. 332 at p. 334-335

where it was said:-

“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one:-

“Which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

….It may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case,” but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”

5.

I have also borne in mind that when making a finding on a prima facie case, a trial court is not expected to render a detailed analysis of the evidence unless the ruling leads to an acquittal. It is also important not to analyse the evidence if the Accused will be put on his defence as such detailed analysis may compromise the evidentiary quality of the defence to be mounted. See

Republic V Samuel Karanja Kiria Cr. Case No.13 Of 2004 Nairobi [2009] eKLR.

6. I have carefully considered all the evidence on record and the respective submissions of the parties. It is my finding that the prosecution has discharged the burden of establishing a prima facie case against each Accused. Each Accused shall therefore make his defence in accordance with section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. Orders accordingly.

Ruling delivered, dated and signed this 26th day of January, 2021.

R. LAGAT KORIR

JUDGE

In the presence of the Accused, Prosecution and Defence Counsel and Court Assistant.