Anthony Kimari v Republic [2017] KEHC 7727 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7727 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- LK Kimaru
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal 9 of 2016
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- LK Kimaru
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal 9 of 2016
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the central issue was whether the applicant was a member of the Kenya Defence Forces at the time of his trial before the Court Martial. If the applicant was not a member, the Court Martial would have lacked jurisdiction to try him, rendering the conviction questionable. The court determined that the applicant's appeal was not frivolous and had a chance of success, satisfying the threshold for bail pending appeal. The court also considered that the applicant had already been convicted, increasing the risk of absconding, but balanced this against the possibility of a successful appeal and the principle that liberty should not be deprived unnecessarily. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail pending appeal, subject to conditions.
Court disposition
Application for bail pending appeal allowed.
Orders
- The applicant is released on bail pending appeal on condition that he deposits a cash bail of Kshs.20,000/-.
- The appeal is admitted to hearing and shall be heard on 9th March 2017.
- The applicant shall prepare, file, and serve the record of appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling.
02
Material facts
Parties
Anthony Kimari
Applicant Counsel: Mr. WereRepublic
Respondent Counsel: Ms. SigeiAmounts and remedies
- Cash Bail Amount: KES 20,000
- Sentence Imposed by Court Martial (months): 20
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant was a member of the Kenya Defence Forces at the time of trial before the Court Martial.
- 02
Whether the applicant's appeal has overwhelming chances of success to justify bail pending appeal.
- 03
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant granting bail pending appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that he had already been discharged from the Kenya Defence Forces under Section 255(1)(g) of the Kenya Defence Forces Act and therefore could not lawfully be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court Martial. He contended that his conviction for desertion was unlawful as he was no longer a member of the armed forces at the time of trial.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the application, asserting that the applicant was still a member of the armed forces at the time of his trial. The prosecution maintained that the proceedings leading to the applicant's discharge had not been concluded and that the applicant had deserted duty without permission. The respondent argued that the appeal did not have overwhelming chances of success and that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles on bail pending appeal; see also Section 74 of the Kenya Defence Forces Act.
An applicant for bail pending appeal must demonstrate that the appeal has overwhelming chances of success and/or that exceptional circumstances exist to justify release.
- 02
Kenya Defence Forces Act, Section 74 and Section 255(1)(g).
Jurisdiction of the Court Martial is contingent upon the accused being a member of the armed forces at the time of trial.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the central issue was whether the applicant was a member of the Kenya Defence Forces at the time of his trial before the Court Martial. If the applicant was not a member, the Court Martial would have lacked jurisdiction to try him, rendering the conviction questionable. The court determined that the applicant's appeal was not frivolous and had a chance of success, satisfying the threshold for bail pending appeal. The court also considered that the applicant had already been convicted, increasing the risk of absconding, but balanced this against the possibility of a successful appeal and the principle that liberty should not be deprived unnecessarily. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail pending appeal, subject to conditions.
Obiter and limits
- The position of the applicant is not the same as that of a person who is facing trial. He has already been convicted. The temptation to abscond from the jurisdiction of the court is real.
- Where there is possibility that the applicant may be successful on his appeal, then he should not be deprived of his liberty even for a single day.
Court disposition
Application for bail pending appeal allowed.
- The applicant is released on bail pending appeal on condition that he deposits a cash bail of Kshs.20,000/-.
- The appeal is admitted to hearing and shall be heard on 9th March 2017.
- The applicant shall prepare, file, and serve the record of appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2016
(An Appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence of the Court
Martial in CourtMartial Case No.7 of 2015 at Moi Airbase Nairobi
delivered on 9th August 2016)
ANTHONY KIMARI............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Anthony Kimari was convicted for desertion from duty contrary to Section 74(1)(a) as read with Sections 74(2)(e) and 74(3)(b) of the Kenya Defence Forces Act. He was sentenced to serve twenty (20) months imprisonment. The Applicant was aggrieved by his conviction and sentence. He has appealed to this court challenging his conviction and sentence. Contemporaneous with filing the appeal, the Applicant filed an application seeking to be granted bail pending appeal. His main ground of appeal is that he was convicted for the offence yet at the time he had been discharged from duty and was no longer a member of the Kenya Defence Forces. It was his case that he could not therefore be subjected to the provisions of the Kenya Defence Forces Act. The Director of Public Prosecutions filed grounds in opposition to the application. He stated that the Applicant had not established that his case had an overwhelming chance of success nor that there existed exceptional circumstances to warrant this court to interfere with the findings made by the Court Martial.
During the hearing of the application, Mr. Were learned counsel for the Applicant essentially reiterated the contents of the application and the supporting affidavit. He submitted that the Applicant had already been discharged under Section 255(1)(g) of the Kenya Defence Forces Act and therefore could not be subjected to the Court Martial. He stated that it was unlawful for the Court Martial to have been convened to try the Applicant when he had ceased to be a member of the armed forces. Ms. Sigei for the State opposed the application. She submitted that indeed the Applicant was a member of the armed forces at the time of his trial before the Court Martial. The Applicant had deserted from duty. The proceedings that the Applicant alleged led to his discharge from service had not been concluded at the time that he was tried before the Court Martial. In the premises therefore, she asserted that the Applicant’s appeal did not have an overwhelming chance of success as the prosecution had established to the required standard of proof that indeed the Applicant had deserted from duty without the permission of his superior officers.
This court has carefully evaluated the facts of this application. For the Applicant to be successful in his application for bail pending appeal, he must establish that his appeal has overwhelming chances of success. He must also establish the existence of exceptional circumstances that will enable this court exercise its discretion in his favour. The position of the Applicant is not the same as that of a person who is facing trial. He has already been convicted. The temptation to abscond from the jurisdiction of the court is real. This court is also aware that where there is possibility that the Applicant may be successful on his appeal, then he should not be deprived of his liberty even for a single day. In the present application, it was clear to the court that the issue as to whether the Applicant was a member of the armed forces at the time he was tried at the Court Martial is a critical and crucial issue. This is because, if indeed the Applicant establishes on appeal that he was not a member of Kenya Defence Forces at the time that he was tried before the Court Martial, then his appeal cannot be considered as lacking in chances of success. This court is of the view that the Applicant established to the satisfaction of this court that his appeal is not frivolous but indeed has a chance of success.
In the premises therefore, this court finds that the Applicant’s application has merit and is hereby allowed. The Applicant is hereby released on bail pending appeal on condition that he deposits a cash bail of Kshs.20,000/-. His appeal is admitted to hearing. It shall be heard by this court on 9th March 2017. He shall be required to prepared file and serve the record of appeal within thirty (30) days from today’s date.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
L. KIMARU
JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.