[2025] KEHC 344 (KLR)
The court found that the bail terms imposed by the trial court were excessive in light of the applicant's personal circumstances, including his health, familial responsibilities, limited financial means, and the absence of evidence suggesting he posed a flight risk. The court emphasized that bail should not be used...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 344 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Maina Gachango; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E212 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bail Terms
- Outcome
- application for revision of bail terms allowed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Bail Terms, Bond Conditions, Judicial Discretion, Pretrial Release
- 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
Francis Maina Gachango
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bail Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bail and bond terms imposed by the trial court were excessive and punitive.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of bail/bond terms based on personal circumstances and constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the bail terms imposed by the trial court were excessive in light of the applicant's personal circumstances, including his health, familial responsibilities, limited financial means, and the absence of evidence suggesting he posed a flight risk. The court emphasized that bail should not be used as a punitive measure and must be proportionate to the objective of securing the accused's attendance at trial. The pre-bail report supported the applicant's case, and there was no objection from the community or the prosecution. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to revise the bail terms to ensure they were reasonable and in line with constitutional guarantees.
Court Disposition
application for revision of bail terms allowed
Orders
- The cash bail of Kshs. 5,000,000 in addition to two sureties imposed by the trial court is substituted with a cash bail of Kshs. 500,000.
- In the alternative, the applicant is admitted to a bond of Kshs. 2,000,000 with one surety of similar amount.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Gachango v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E212 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 344 (KLR) (24 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 344 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E212 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
January 24, 2025
Between
Francis Maina Gachango
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 20th December 2024, seeking revision of the trial court's ruling imposing excessive bail terms. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on the same date by the applicant's advocate, Evans Ondieki.
2. The applicant faces multiple charges, including: operating a clandestine laboratory (contrary to section 5B(1)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, No. 4 of 1994); possession of precursor chemicals for producing narcotic drugs (contrary to section 4a(1)(A) of the same Act); two counts of forgery (contrary to section 345 as read with section 349 of the Penal Code); and conspiracy to commit an offence (contrary to section 4B(2) as read with section 4B(5) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act).
3. The applicant pleaded not guilty and was granted cash bail of Kshs. 5 million with two sureties of the same amount. He contends that the bail is excessive and punitive, citing his role as a father, his health condition (high blood pressure), and the deterioration of his health since incarceration. He requests the court to grant proportionate bail/bond terms.
4. The application was canvassed by way of oral submissions. Mr. Ondieki in support of the application. In response, the respondent led by Mr. Mutuma did not oppose the application.
5. I have considered the application, the arguments made in support of the application, and the applicable law. For consideration is whether the orders sought should be reviewed.
6. In granting bail, the court must also ensure that bail or bond terms must not be excessive or unreasonable and should not be far greater than what is necessary to ensure or guarantee the accused person's appearance before the court. Where this is the case, it would be tantamount to a denial of bail, a right that is enshrined in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code as outlined above. This position was expounded in the case of Taiko Kitende Muinya [2010] e-KLR.
7. The Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines on page 9 paragraph 3. 1. (d) underpins the right to reasonable Bail and Bond terms. Conversely, bail or bond amounts should not be so low that the accused person would be enticed into forfeiting the bail or bond amount and fleeing. Secondly, bail or bond conditions should be appropriate to the offence committed and consider the personal circumstances of the accused person. In the circumstances, what is reasonable will be determined by reference to the facts and circumstances prevailing in each case. The above position has been enunciated in various decisions by the courts as in the case of Andrew Young Otieno vs. Republic (2017) eKLR.
8. In this case, the court found it fit to admit the applicant to a cash bail of Kshs. 5 million in addition to two sureties of similar amount. The inference is that he has been able to raise the bond terms granted. The purpose of bail/bond is to ensure the accused attends court. In addition, the pre-bail report on record further supports the applicant's case, indicating that he is of good character, has familial responsibilities, and is of limited financial means. Moreover, the community has not raised any objections to his release on bail, and there is no evidence to suggest that he poses a flight risk. His continued incarceration is therefore a good ground for a review of the bond terms.
9. In the upshot, the orders of the subordinate court issued on 19th December 2024 are hereby revised as follows:i.The cash bail of Kshs. 5,000,000 in addition to two sureties imposed by the trial court on 19th December 2024 is substituted with a cash bail of Kshs. 500,000. ii.In the alternative to order (i) above, the applicant is admitted to a bond of Kshs. 2,000,000 with one surety of similar amount.iiiThe applicant shall comply with the other bail terms issued by the trial court on 19th December 2024. Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 24THDAY OF JANUARY 2025____________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Applicant presentMutuma for the RespondentKanyangi Court Assistant