[2014] KEHC 493 (KLR)
The court held that while delay in trial is a relevant consideration in bail applications, it cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. For delay to justify release, it must be shown to be both unreasonable and intentional, and there must be no other compelling reasons for continued detention. In this case, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 493 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dancun Livingstone Kimanthi; Applicant: Winnie Wairimu Kariuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 50 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Review of Bail Application
- Outcome
- applications for review of bail dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Pretrial Detention, Delay of Trial, Witness Interference
- 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
Dancun Livingstone Kimanthi
Applicant
Winnie Wairimu Kariuki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Review of Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delay in commencing trial constitutes sufficient grounds to review and grant bail to the applicants.
- 2 Whether there are new circumstances that warrant a departure from the previous denial of bail.
- 3 Whether the risk of absconding and interference with witnesses remains a compelling reason to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while delay in trial is a relevant consideration in bail applications, it cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. For delay to justify release, it must be shown to be both unreasonable and intentional, and there must be no other compelling reasons for continued detention. In this case, the applicants failed to demonstrate any new circumstances regarding the pending capital charges or the risk of interference with witnesses. The court found that the original reasons for denying bail—risk of absconding and potential interference with prosecution witnesses—remain valid and unaddressed. Consequently, the applications for review of bail were dismissed, and the court...
Court Disposition
applications for review of bail dismissed
Orders
- The review applications for bail are dismissed.
- The prosecution is directed to present all its witnesses for the trial scheduled on 26th - 29th May 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 50 OF 2012
DANCUN LIVINGSTONE KIMANTHI.................1ST APPLICANT
WINNIE WAIRIMU KARIUKI...........................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC........................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The two applications before me seek a review of the ruling of this court delivered on 22nd August 2013. In the ruling I disallowed the application for review of bail in respect of the two accused Dancun Livingstone Kimathi and Winnie Wairimu Kariuki respectively.
There were four reasons why I disallowed the application. Firstly, I was persuaded that the release of the applicants would instill fear in the witnesses particularly those who were colleagues of the 1st accused at the U.S.I.U; that the applicants were likely to interfere with witnesses; and, that the accused who were facing two capital offences were likely to abscond and not attend trial.
At the hearing of the present review application on 22nd January 2014 I heard submissions from learned counsel Mr. BowryandMr. Kaingu respectively for the 1st and 2nd accused.
Both counsel urged the court to take judicial notice in the delay in hearing the case. They respectively submitted that the applicants have been in custody for long and the trial had not even commenced. The long delay, they submitted, was prejudicial to the accused. They referred me to the case of Kimani V. Republic Criminal Application No. 576 of 1990in which Mbaluto J. (as he then was) granted bail in consideration of delay in trying the case.
In opposing submissions, Mr. Karuri, the learned prosecuting counsel referred the court to the averments in the Replying affidavit filed earlier by the State and the court’s own ruling which dismissed the earlier application. In particular, he submitted that the vulnerable witnesses were yet to testify and that the applicants were unlikely to attend trial owing to the fact that they were facing two capital charges.
I have carefully considered this review application. The only new issue raised in this application is the delay in trying the accused. It is the applicant’s view that it is unfair to been held in custody when it is likely that the case will not proceed expeditiously.
As suggested by the applicants’ counsel, I have taken judicial notice of the fact that the trial in this case is yet to start. Delay however cannot be the only consideration as to whether or not bail can be granted. If it were, then every accused person would automatically be granted bail owing to the current limited number of judicial officers vis-a-vis the high number of cases to be tried which necessarily contributes to delay in most cases. For delay to be considered a critical factor, it must be demonstrated that it is both unreasonable and intentional. Further, there must be no other compelling reason to warrant an applicant being denied bail.
In this particular case, I have reviewed all the reasons why bail was previously denied. The applicants were denied bail because I held the view that they were likely to abscond owing to the multiple capital charges they face; and, that they were likely to interfere with prosecution witnesses. I explained then and in depth the reasons for arriving at that decision. It has not been demonstrated in the review application that there exist any new circumstances with respect to the pending capital charges and the witnesses who are yet to testify.
On the issue of delay, I note that the matter now is scheduled for trial on 26th - 29th May 2014. I direct that the prosecution presents all its witnesses for the trial to proceed expeditiously.
The review applications are dismissed.
Ruling delivered and signedat Nairobi this 11thday of March, 2014
R.LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
………………………………… :Court clerk
……………………………….. :1st Applicant
………………………………… :2nd Applicant
……………………………….. :Counsel for the 1st Applicant
……………………………….. :Counsel for the 2nd Applicant
………………………………. :Counsel for the Respondent