[2019] KEHC 11537 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicant had previously complied with bail conditions and attended court as required, demonstrating he was not a flight risk. The only reason for his continued detention was inability to raise the cash bail in the subsequent case. The court was satisfied that consolidating the bond terms...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11537 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Edwin Mwiti Gacunku; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 296 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Consolidate Bail Terms
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Bond Terms Consolidation, Flight Risk Assessment
- 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
Edwin Mwiti Gacunku
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Consolidate Bail Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond terms in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No.776 of 2017 (Milimani) should be consolidated and applied to Criminal Case No.2411 of 2018 (Milimani).
- 2 Whether the Applicant is a flight risk if released on consolidated bond terms.
- 3 Whether the Applicant's antecedent conduct supports the consolidation of bond terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant had previously complied with bail conditions and attended court as required, demonstrating he was not a flight risk. The only reason for his continued detention was inability to raise the cash bail in the subsequent case. The court was satisfied that consolidating the bond terms would not prejudice the administration of justice, given the Applicant's favourable antecedents and the absence of evidence suggesting he would abscond or interfere with the trial process. Therefore, the court allowed the application, ordering that the bond terms in the earlier case apply to both cases, subject to the Applicant's continued compliance with all bond conditions.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The bond terms imposed in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No.776 of 2017 (Milimani) shall apply in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No.2411 of 2018 (Milimani).
- The Applicant shall attend court in the two cases without fail and abide by all the terms attached to the bond.
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.296 OF 2019
EDWIN MWITI GACUNKU.......................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Edwin Mwiti Gacunku has been charged in two cases i.e. Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No.776 of 2017 (Milimani) and Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case 2411 of 2018 (Milimani). When arraigned in court, the Applicant pleaded not guilty in both cases. In the first case, he was released on bond of Kshs.1 million with a surety of the same amount. In the subsequent case, he was ordered to pay a cash bail of Kshs.100,000/- to secure his release on bail pending trial. The Applicant has been unable to raise the subsequent cash bail. He pleads with the court to consolidate the bail terms in both cases so that the earlier bond term issued in Criminal Case No.776 of 2017 (Milimani) applies to the subsequent case.
During the hearing of the application, Mr. Otieno for the Applicant urged the court to consolidate the bond terms noting that the Applicant had been in custody for a period of one (1) year since he was charged in the subsequent case. He submitted that the bail report that was prepared that informed the court when granting him bail pending trial was favourable. He urged the court to take into consideration the fact that when the Applicant was released on bail pending trial in the previous case, he attended court without fail. Ms. Kimaru for the State opposed the application. She submitted that the two charges that the Applicant was facing in the two cases were different and therefore ought to be treated differently. Whereas she conceded that a pre-bail report had been presented to court, she noted that the report did not indicate that the Applicant was trustworthy. In the premises therefore, she urged the court to disallow the application.
The overriding principle that guides the court in applications such as the present one is whether the Applicant, if released on bail pending trial, will attend court on the dates that the cases are scheduled for trial. Of course, there are principles which this court ought to consider such as the serious nature of the offence the Applicant faces and whether the Applicant was likely to abscond from the jurisdiction of the court and also taking into consideration his antecedent conduct. Further, this court is required to take into consideration whether, if the Applicant is released on bail pending trial, he will commit another offence or will interfere with witnesses. In the present application, the trial courts released the Applicant on bail pending trial. The courts were satisfied that the Applicant fulfilled the requirements to enable the said courts release him on bail pending trial. In the considered opinion of this court, the said courts formed the view that the Applicant was not a flight risk. From his antecedents in the previous case where he was first released on bail pending trial, it was clear that the Applicant attended court when the trial was scheduled for hearing. The only issue that seems to have led to the detention of the Applicant in pre-trial custody is his failure to raise the bail terms in the subsequent case.
This court has carefully evaluated the facts of this case. It was clear to this court that the Applicant’s application in which he seeks the consolidation of bond terms in the two cases is merited. This court is convinced that the Applicant will not be a flight risk if he is released on the consolidated bond terms of the two cases. His antecedents in the previous case are favourable. In the premises therefore, this court allows the Applicant’s application as a result of which the bond terms imposed in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No.776 of 2017 (Milimani) shall apply in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No.2411 of 2018 (Milimani).The Applicant shall attend court in the two cases without fail and abide by all the terms that are attached to the bond. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019
L. KIMARU
JUDGE