[2010] KEHC 2689 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that any of his constitutional rights had been infringed or were likely to be infringed by the police. The mere fear of arrest, without evidence of abuse of police powers or violation of constitutional rights, does not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2689 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bernard Marete; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Case 42 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Constitutional Rights Enforcement, Police Powers, Arrest and Detention
- 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
Bernard Marete
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail or bond pending arrest and charge.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated infringement or likelihood of infringement of his constitutional rights by the police.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that any of his constitutional rights had been infringed or were likely to be infringed by the police. The mere fear of arrest, without evidence of abuse of police powers or violation of constitutional rights, does not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail or bond. The police are empowered by statute to arrest persons reasonably suspected of committing offences, and their actions are only subject to constitutional limitations. Since the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of any actual or imminent violation of his rights, the application for anticipatory bail or bond was dismissed, and the bond previously issued was revoked.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for anticipatory bail/bond is dismissed.
- The bond issued to the applicant on 7th December 2009 is revoked.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Miscellaneous Criminal Case 42 of 2009
BERNARD MARETE ……………………………….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………………….. RERSPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The applicant has filed an application under Sections 70, 72, 74 and 84 (1) of the Constitution.He seeks by that application that the court do grant him anticipatory bail/bond pending arrest and charge.In his affidavit in support of that application, he stated that he had been sued in Meru CMCC No. 477 of 2009 by a person called Silas Mbaabu Magambo claiming parcel number Abogeta/U-Kithangari/1011. The said Silas had since that suit was filed used the officer in charge of station Nkubu Police Station to what the applicant called, “Order a curfew” over his home.He did not explain what this meant.The applicant then stated that he feared that he would be arrested.That Silas’s intention was to use the police to intimidate him and make him unable to pursue a civil claim.The state counsel in response to the application correctly stated that by the Police Act, the police can arrest anyone they reasonably suspect has committed an offence.That is the correct position.Section 14 of the Police Act Cap 84 provides:-
“The force shall be employed in Kenya for the maintenance of law and order, the preservation of peace, the protection of life and property, the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, and the enforcement of all laws, regulations with which it is charged.”
That section does not provided that the police in carrying out their duties have to be supervised by the court.They however have to carry out their duties subject to the provisions of the Constitution.The applicant in this matter was unable to show the court that any of his constitutional rights have been infringed or were likely to be infringed.On the whole I find the application has no merit and I dismiss the same and order that the bond issued to the applicant on 7th December 2009 be and is hereby revoked.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 14th day of May 2010.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE