[2012] KEHC 679 (KLR)
The court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to support a conviction on both counts, particularly on Count II regarding possession of a firearm. The court was persuaded that the appeal had overwhelming chances of success, and therefore, it was just to admit the applicant to bail...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 679 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Derick Ogola; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 173 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for bail pending appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Personation Offence, Firearm Possession, Burden of Proof
- 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
Derick Ogola
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 evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the conviction on both counts.
- 3 Whether the appeal has overwhelming chances of success.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to support a conviction on both counts, particularly on Count II regarding possession of a firearm. The court was persuaded that the appeal had overwhelming chances of success, and therefore, it was just to admit the applicant to bail pending appeal. The court emphasized the prosecution's duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, upon reviewing the trial record and hearing both parties, concluded that the applicant met the threshold for bail pending appeal.
Court Disposition
application for bail pending appeal allowed
Orders
- The applicant is admitted to bail/bond in the sum of Kshs 150,000 with a surety of similar amount.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Appeal 173 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]
DERICK OGOLA.......................................................................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC..............................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING:
The Applicant was charged with the offence of personating a Public Officer contrary to section 105 (b) of the Penal Code. This offence was count No. 1.
the Applicant on Count II was charged with the offence of being in possession of a firearm contrary to Section 89 (1) of the Penal Code.
The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a total of nine (9) years imprisonment. Being aggrieved the Applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2012.
The Applicant comes to this court seeking to be admitted to bail pending Appeal.
At the hearing of the application Counsel for the Applicant submitted that on Count I there were material contradictions in the evidence of the key prosecution witnesses which raised doubt culminating in the failure by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
On Count II, Counsel submitted that the evidence of the ballistic expert was inconclusive as he did not confirm that the “firearm” found in the Applicants possession met the specifications of a real firearm.
On those two (2) grounds Counsel prayed that the application be allowed as the appeal had overwhelming chances of succeeding. Reference was made to the case of FRANCIS AMAZIMBI MILIMO -VS- R. (HC MISC CR. APP. NO. 24/2006) in support of the application for bail pending appeal.
Prosecuting Counsel for the State conceded the application on the grounds that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to support a conviction on both counts and that the appeal had a high chance of succeeding.
After hearing the arguments of both Counsel and upon perusing the trial courts record of proceedings, this court is persuaded that the appeal has overwhelming chances of succeeding particularly on Count No. II
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION.
For the reasons stated above, the application for bail pending appeal is hereby allowed.
The Applicant is hereby admitted to Bail/Band in the sum of Kshs 150,000/= with a surety of similar amount.
It is so ordered.
Dated and Delivered at Eldoret this 8th day of November 2012.
A.MSHILA
JUDGE
Coram: Before Hon. A Mshila J
CC: Andrew
Counsel for the Applicant: Marube
Counsel for the State: Chirchir holding brief for Kabaka.
A.MSHILA
JUDGE