M.W v Republic [2013] eKLR a recall of any witness who may have testified. I accordingly rule that the trial court did not violate any provisions of the law at the time the charge sheet was amended. However, it would have been prudent of the trial court to ask the Appellant whether or not he objected to the amendment. This did not however vitiate the process of a fair trial because the substituted charge gave rise to an offence known in law. The amendment only properly defined the offence in relation to the offender and the victim. Under the ground of appeal number seven, though unrelated, the Appellant has submitted that the trial Magistrate did not make a ruling on whether he had a case to answer after close of the prosecution's case as envisaged by Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This assertion is far from the truth. After the close of the prosecution's case, the learned Magistrate ruled as follows:"I have carefully considered the evidence on record. I am satisfied that prosecution has made out a prima facie case sufficient to warrant accused person to be put on his defence. Accused has a case to answer." The trial Magistrate further noted:"Section 211 Criminal Procedure Code complied with." The appellant in response said; "I will give unsworn statement. I have no witness." It is important to point out to the Appellant that a ruling on whether an accused has a case to answer or not is made after close of the prosecution's case pursuant to Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code as opposed to Section 211 thereof. Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code outlines the various ways by which an accused can tender his defence. It provides:"211 (1) At the close of the evidence in support of the charge, and after hearing such summing up, submission or argument as may be put forward, if it appears to the court that a case is made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the court shall again explain the substance of the charge to the accused, and shall inform him that he has a right to give evidence on oath from the witness box, and that, if he does so, he will be liable to cross-examination, or to make a statement not on oath from the dock, and shall ask him whether he has any witnesses to examine or other evidence to adduce in his defence,and the court shall then hear the accused and his witnesses and other evidence (if any). (2) If the accused person states that he has witnesses to call but that they are not present in court, and the court is satisfied that the absence of those witnesses is not due to any fault or neglect of the accused person, and that there is a likelihood that they could, if present, give material evidence on behalf of the accused person, the court may adjourn the trial and issue process, or take other steps, to compel the attendance of the witness. And as rightly pointed out herein above, the trial Magistrate fully complied with it in the terms the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 7/8