[2014] KEHC 2822 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his appeal had overwhelming chances of success or that there existed exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of bail pending appeal. The court noted the absence of critical exhibits, such as the P3 form, and found that the evidence on record,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2822 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Simiyu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 53 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Grievous Harm, Standard of Proof, Exceptional Circumstances
- 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
David Simiyu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the appeal has overwhelming chances of success.
- 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify granting bail pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his appeal had overwhelming chances of success or that there existed exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of bail pending appeal. The court noted the absence of critical exhibits, such as the P3 form, and found that the evidence on record, including the trial court's findings and medical testimony, supported the conviction for grievous harm. The court emphasized that bail pending appeal is not a right but a discretionary remedy, only available in clear cases where the appeal is likely to succeed or exceptional circumstances are shown. As neither threshold was met, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2014
DAVID SIMIYU....................................................APPELLANT
VRS
REPUBLIC........................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from Conviction and Sentence by Hon. Mr. I. T. Maisiba, Senior Resident
Magistratein Bungoma Cr. Case No.715 of 2014)
RULING
1. David Simiyu (“the Applicant”) was on 11th May, 2010 arraigned before the Chief Magistrate's Court, Bungoma with the offence of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on 30th April, 2010, at Sango Area, Bungoma South District, he unlawfully did grevious harm to Andrew Mechumo. After trial, he was found guilty and was convicted of the offence. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
2. He has now preferred an appeal to this court. On 23rd June, 2014, he filed an application to be granted bail pending the hearing and determination of his appeal. This ruling is in respect of that application.
3. The Applicant contended that he is dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court (Hon. I. T. Maisiba), that he has already lodged the BGM H. C.Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2014 against that judgment; that the appeal will take long to be determined whereby he might have served the sentence thereby rendering the appeal nugatory; that he had lodged the application timeously and that there are no good or compelling reasons why he should not be admitted to bail.
4. Mr. Murunga, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Appeal has overwhelming chances of success; that the injuries were not proved to be grevious harm; that the court failed to consider the probation report that was favourbale to the Applicant. Counsel relied on the Cases of Judy Waruguru Kagai -vs- Republic [2014] eKLR and Edwin Ndwiga Justus -vs- Republic[2010] eKLRin support of his submissions. He urged that the application be allowed.
5. The State opposed the application through the grounds of opposition dated 7th July, 2014. Mr. Jesse Kamau, the Learned State Counsel submitted that bail pending appeal is not a Constitutional right envisaged by Article 49 (h) of the Constitution; that the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence has fallen with his conviction and bail is therefore not as of right; he urged that the application be dismissed.
6. I have considered the Affidavit in support of the application. I have also carefully examined the grounds in the Petition of Appeal; the proceedings and Judgment of the trial court. I have also considered the submissions of counsel. In an application for bail pending appeal, the principles are well settled. That an Applicant must establish that the appeal has high chances of succeeding or that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the court to grant bail in the interests of justice. See Edwin Ndegwa Justus -vs- Republic [2010]eKLR.
7. Since I am not hearing or determining the appeal, it will be inappropriate for me to examine the grounds of appeal in extenso at this stage. The Applicant failed to annex to his application copies of the exhibits produced at the trial. The P3 form which was the basis of the injuries was never exhibited. The proceedings show that an unidentified witness had testified that the injuries were harm. Since it was the Applicant to bring to the attention of this court the proper record and evidence he is to rely on to discredit the judgment, I am unable to hold whether or not the offence of grievous harm was proved beyond reasonable doubt with the material before me. Suffice it to state that in the judgment, the trial court stated:-
“PW3 was Dr. Mulianga Ekesa.... he had a P3 for the Complainant …. He had a cut wound on the left forehead which was swollen and tender. The patient had a fracture of 10 (4) …... The possible type of weapon used was both sharp and blunt...... The degree of injury was assessed to be grievous harm.”
With the foregoing, in the absence of a copy of the P3 form produced at the trial, I cannot hold that the charge was not proved. I have examined the evidence tendered at the trial, the judgment of the trial court and the grounds of appeal and I am not satisfied that the appeal has any overwhelming chances of succeeding. I am also not satisfied that the Applicant has established the existence of any exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of bail.
8. I am therefore satisfied that the application is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
DATED and DELIVERED at Bungoma this 22nd day of September, 2014.
A. MABEYA
JUDGE