[2019] KEHC 11532 (KLR)
The court found that while the seriousness of the charges justified the imposition of stringent bond terms, the Applicant's inability to meet the original terms and the constitutional requirement for reasonable bond terms warranted a partial review. The court held that the Applicant's offer for reduced bond terms...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11532 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Augustine Mulwa Musembi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 162 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Review of Bond Terms
- Outcome
- Application for review of bond terms allowed in part.
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Bond Terms Review, Reasonable Bail, Compelling Reasons, Remand Custody
- 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
Augustine Mulwa Musembi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Review of Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond terms previously imposed were reasonable and attainable by the Applicant.
- 2 Whether there were sufficient grounds to review the bond terms set by the court.
- 3 Whether the seriousness of the charges justified stringent bond terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the seriousness of the charges justified the imposition of stringent bond terms, the Applicant's inability to meet the original terms and the constitutional requirement for reasonable bond terms warranted a partial review. The court held that the Applicant's offer for reduced bond terms was reasonable and that the bond should be set at Kshs.2,000,000/- with two sureties of the same amount, with all other conditions remaining unchanged. This decision balanced the need to secure the Applicant's attendance at trial with his constitutional right to reasonable bail.
Court Disposition
Application for review of bond terms allowed in part.
Orders
- Bond terms reviewed to Kshs.2,000,000/- with two sureties of the same amount.
- Other terms attached to the bond remain unchanged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2019
AUGUSTINE MULWA MUSEMBI.......................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..........................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
On 12th April 2019, this court granted the Applicant’s application which he sought to be released on bail pending trial. The court ordered the Applicant to be released on bail of Kshs.5,000,000/- with two sureties of the same amount. There were additional conditions attached to the release on bail which are not germane to this Ruling. On 2nd May 2019, the Applicant made an application seeking the review of the bond terms that was imposed by the court. He told the court that he still in remand custody due to his inability to raise the entire bail amount or to get suitable persons to be his sureties. He reiterated that there were no compelling reasons to deny him affordable bond term. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of the Applicant.
During the hearing of the application, this court heard oral submission made by Mr. Ongoto for the Applicant and by Ms. Sigei for the State. Mr. Ongoto submitted that the Applicant was unable to raise the bond terms that was opposed by the court. He pleaded with court to review the bond terms to Kshs.2,000,000/- with one surety of the same amount. He explained that since the issue of the Applicant’s release on bond had already been determined by the court, he urged the court not to impose such terms as to render his release on bail pending trial unattainable. Ms. Sigei for the State opposed the application. She submitted that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the circumstances that informed the court when it rendered its earlier Ruling had changed. She urged the court not to interfere with its earlier determination.
This court has carefully considered the Applicant’s application. This court agrees with the Applicant that Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution behooves this court to consider granting an accused person reasonable bond terms. The court also agrees with Ms. Sigei that the charges facing the Applicant are serious and that it is imperative that stringent bond terms be imposed to secure the Applicant’s attendance in court during trial. That being the case, this court agrees with the Applicant that the offer he has made for the review of the bond terms is reasonable and should therefore be allowed in part.
In the premises therefore, the order issued by this court on 12th April 2019 is reviewed to the extent that the bond terms imposed on the Applicant shall be Kshs.2,000,000/- with two sureties of the same amount. The other terms attached to the bond shall remain the same. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY 2019.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE