[2014] KEHC 2210 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court's order granting the accused a bond of Ksh. 30,000 with one surety or a cash bail of Ksh. 50,000, along with the deposit of the accused's identity card due to concerns about nationality, was not irregular or improper. The court held that there was no fault with the order and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2210 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdiaziz Shariff Hussein; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 45 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bond Terms
- Outcome
- Application for revision dismissed.
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond Terms, Criminal Revision Jurisdiction, Powers of High Court, Bond Review Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdiaziz Shariff Hussein
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the enhancement of cash bail to Ksh. 50,000 with a surety was punitive to the accused.
- 2 Whether the trial court's order on bond and cash bail was irregular or improper.
- 3 Whether the High Court should interfere with the subordinate court's discretion on bond terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court's order granting the accused a bond of Ksh. 30,000 with one surety or a cash bail of Ksh. 50,000, along with the deposit of the accused's identity card due to concerns about nationality, was not irregular or improper. The court held that there was no fault with the order and that the applicant was not estopped from seeking a further review of the bond terms before the subordinate court. The High Court emphasized that its revisionary jurisdiction is only invoked when the orders of the subordinate court are not regular, which was not the case here.
Court Disposition
Application for revision dismissed.
Orders
- The application for revision of bond terms is dismissed.
- The applicant may seek further review of bond terms before the subordinate court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 45 OF 2014
(From the original Criminal Case No. 1704 of 2014 in the Chief Magistrate's
Court at Mombasa – Hon. Kamau - RM)
ABDIAZIZ SHARIFF HUSSEIN......................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
This application for revision is by way of a letter dated the 13th October, 2014. The grounds for the revision are;-
1. That on the 18th September, 2014 when the Accused person appeared in Court for plea taking the Honourable Magistrate did grant the Accused a bond of Ksh. 30,000/= with a surety without an alternative of cash bail.
2. That on the 8th day of October 2014 when we appeared for the Accused application for alternative cash bail was made and the trial Court granted a cash bail of Ksh. 50,000/= with one surety of similar amount.
3. That the enhancement of the cash bail of Ksh. 50,000/= with a surety is punitive to the Accused.
The powers for revision by the High Court are provided for under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code thus,
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding Sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate Court”.
A perusal of the record of proceedings indicate that Accused was charged with the offence of stealing from a locked container contrary to section 279(g) of the Penal Code with the alternative count of handling stolen goods contrary to section 322 (2) of the Penal Code.
On the day of plea which was 18th September, 2010 he was granted a bond of Ksh. 30,000/= with a surety. Thereafter on the 8th day of October, 2014 an application for review of bond terms was made and the Court did grant the Accused a bond of Ksh. 30,000/= with one surety or cash bail of Ksh. 50,000/= and the Accused to deposit his identity card. The order for deposit of the identity card was made in view of the Accused nationality being suspect.
I find no fault with that order but the applicant is not estopped from making an application before the subordinate Court for a further review of the bond terms to a more manageable ones. Only when orders are made which are not regular can the applicant come before this Court.
Ruling delivered dated and signed in open Court this 22nd day of October, 2014.
…....................
M. MUYA
JUDGE
22ND OCTOBER, 2014
In the presence of:-
Mr. Simiyu for the applicant
Court clerk Musundi