[2019] KEHC 9599 (KLR)
The court found that while the trial magistrates had previously declined to review the bond terms on the basis that they were commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, the absence of objection from the prosecution and the constitutional presumption of innocence warranted a review. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9599 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ahmed Osman; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 56 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Terms
- Outcome
- application for review of bail terms allowed in part; bail terms revised
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Bond Terms, Pretrial Release
- 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
Ahmed Osman
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bail and bond terms imposed by the trial court were excessive or unjustified.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of bail terms in light of the prosecution's non-objection and the presumption of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the trial magistrates had previously declined to review the bond terms on the basis that they were commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, the absence of objection from the prosecution and the constitutional presumption of innocence warranted a review. The court exercised its discretion to revise the bail terms, balancing the seriousness of the offence with the applicant's right to reasonable bail. The revised terms included a reduced cash bail, additional surety, surrender of passport, reporting obligations, and restrictions on movement, ensuring both the interests of justice and the applicant's rights were protected.
Court Disposition
application for review of bail terms allowed in part; bail terms revised
Orders
- Accused to pay cash bail of Kshs 5,000,000.
- In addition to cash bail, accused to provide surety of Kshs 5,000,000 plus one Kenyan citizen.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 56 OF 2019
AHMED OSMAN.......................................................ACCUSED/APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
By a notice of motion dated 6th February 2019 the accused in Meru C.M.C No 66 of 2018 applied that this court revises and/or review the ruling on bail and grant lenient bond terms.
The application was supported by the grounds on the face of the motion and an affidavit sworn on 6th February 2019 by said Ahmed Osman.The state didn’t object to the revision and/or review of bond terms.
The lower court record has been perused as well as the statute creating the offence herein and it is noted that the penalty for the offence is a fine of Kshs 30 million shillings in default 30 years imprisonment or birth.
It is also noted that on 23. 1.2019 and 8. 2.2019 when the applicant sought review of the terms the trial magistrates then presiding declined for reasons that the terms are commensurate with the nature and seriousness of offence. I do agree with the trial courts view however, considering that the prosecution has not objected and that accused remains innocent until proven guilty the court will review bond terms as follows:-
1. Accused to pay cash bail of Kshs 5,000,000/=
2. In addition to cash bail accused to provide surety of Kshs Kshs. 5,000,000/= + one Kenyan citizen
3. Accused person to deposit his passport with the court as pre-condition for release in terms above.
4. Accused person shall be required to report to Investigating officer once a week every Thursday except where the Thursday fall on a hearing or mention date in curt in which case he will report on the subsequent.
5. The accused will remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless with the authority of the court.
6. Matter be mentioned before trial court on 27. 2.2019 for further orders.
7. In the event the applicant is unable to raise security the trial court to expedite hearing.
……………………….
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
RULING SIGNED, DELIVERED AND DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019.
In the presence of:
CA: Kinoti
Mr Namiti for state
Ms Muna Advocate holding brief for Otieno C for Applicant.
Applicant – Present in person
………………………….
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE