[2016] KEHC 5398 (KLR)
The court found that the bond terms previously imposed on the applicant were excessively harsh and unaffordable, thereby defeating the purpose of bail, which is to secure the accused's attendance at trial while upholding the presumption of innocence. The court held that bond terms must be reasonable and affordable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5398 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Evans Murungaru Kamiti; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 99 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Review of Bond Terms
- Outcome
- Bond terms reviewed and reduced.
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Bond Terms, Right to Fair Trial
- 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
Evans Murungaru Kamiti
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Review of Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond terms previously set were excessively harsh and defeated the purpose of bail.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of bond terms to make them affordable while ensuring attendance at trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the bond terms previously imposed on the applicant were excessively harsh and unaffordable, thereby defeating the purpose of bail, which is to secure the accused's attendance at trial while upholding the presumption of innocence. The court held that bond terms must be reasonable and affordable to the accused, and that the interests of justice require a balance between ensuring attendance at trial and not imposing punitive conditions. Consequently, the court reviewed and reduced the bond terms to make them affordable, while still ensuring the applicant's attendance at trial.
Court Disposition
Bond terms reviewed and reduced.
Orders
- The applicant shall deposit a bond of Kshs. 500,000 with one surety of a similar amount to be assessed by the trial court.
- In the alternative, the applicant shall deposit a cash bail of Kshs. 300,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2016
EVANS MURUNGARU KAMITI….…………………………APPLICANT
Versus
REPUBLIC………………………….………………..…RESPONDENT
RULING
I have considered the respective submissions. To start with, the proceedings in this file ought to have been recorded in the file Misc. Cr. Application No. 389 of 2016. This is the file on which the Applicant made the initial application for reinstatement of his bail before the trial court.
All the same, in my ruling of 23rd December, 2015, I enunciated the reasons why the court was of the view that the Applicant was entitled to bail. I need not belabor on that point any more as reference is available.
It is a cardinal principle to a fair trial that an accused is always resumed innocent unless otherwise proved guilty. Bail should not be granted to an accused as a matter of course. It must serve specific purposes, one of which is to ensure that he attends trial when called upon. If the bond terms are so harsh such that the accused cannot meet them, it defeats the very purpose for which the bond was given in the first instance. This scenario is presented at the present. That is why the court must review the Applicant’s bond terms, preferably make them affordable whilst not losing sight of other considerations which must not be overlooked.
In the upshot, I review the terms of bond earlier given. The Applicant shall deposit a bond of Kshs. 500,000/= with one surety of a similar amount to be assessed by the trial court. In the alternative, he shall deposit a cash bail of Kshs. 300,000/=. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED in Nairobi this 31stday of March, 2016.
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Applicant in person
M/s Wario holding brief for M/s Aluda for the Respondent.