[2023] KEHC 20686 (KLR)
The court found that anticipatory bail, though not specifically provided for in statute, is available as a constitutional relief to protect fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights. The applicants demonstrated that their right to liberty was threatened by the imminent risk of arrest following directions from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 20686 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Getrude Gathomi; Applicant: James Mwendwa; Applicant: James Mugambi; Applicant: Keneth Murithi; Applicant: Erick Micheni Mbaka; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Inspector General National Police Service; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E010 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Anticipatory Bail Application
- Outcome
- Anticipatory bail granted to all applicants pending hearing and determination of the application.
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Right to Liberty, Enforcement of Bill of Rights, Threat of Arrest
- 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
Getrude Gathomi
Applicant
James Mwendwa
Applicant
James Mugambi
Applicant
Keneth Murithi
Applicant
Erick Micheni Mbaka
Applicant
Director of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Inspector General National Police Service
Respondent
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Anticipatory Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail pending hearing and determination of the application.
- 2 Whether the applicants' rights to liberty are threatened by the intended arrest and prosecution.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that anticipatory bail, though not specifically provided for in statute, is available as a constitutional relief to protect fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights. The applicants demonstrated that their right to liberty was threatened by the imminent risk of arrest following directions from the Director of Public Prosecution. The court held that it has jurisdiction under Articles 23 and 165(3) of the Constitution to grant anticipatory bail where there is a credible threat to constitutional rights. The court determined that granting anticipatory bail would not prejudice the respondents and was necessary to prevent violation of the applicants' rights. Accordingly, the...
Court Disposition
Anticipatory bail granted to all applicants pending hearing and determination of the application.
Orders
- Applicants to execute a bond of Kshs. 300,000/- each pending hearing and determination of the application.
- Anticipatory bail to last for a period of three months.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
Gathomi & 4 others v Director of Criminal Investigations & 2 others (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E010 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 20686 (KLR) (23 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 20686 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Chuka
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E010 of 2023
LW Gitari, J
May 23, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2,19,20,2022,23,25,27,29,47,48,49,50,258,259 AND 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF LIBERTY, FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF PERSONS
Between
Getrude Gathomi
1st Applicant
James Mwendwa
2nd Applicant
James Mugambi
3rd Applicant
Keneth Murithi
4th Applicant
Erick Micheni Mbaka
5th Applicant
and
Director of Criminal Investigations
1st Respondent
Inspector General National Police Service
2nd Respondent
Director of Public Prosecution
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicants have filed the application dated 4/5/2023 seeking orders inter-alia that they be admitted to anticipatory bail or bond pending the hearing and determination of this application. The counsel for the applicant has urged this court to grant them bail as the purpose of the application may be defeated. The counsel further submits that the 3rd respondent has directed the police to arrest the applicants. The respondent has also stated that granting the application will not defeat the purpose of the application.
2. I have considered the application and the affidavit in support. It has been held that anticipatory bail is a special relief in criminal cases and the core, character and the scope of the bail may be problematic requiring a careful stitching of the relief, see Gikonyo J in Paul Ole Kuyana v Director of Public Prosecutions and 2others. There are no specific provisions for granting the anticipatory bail safe for the Constitutional provisions under the Bill of Rights. Article 23 of the Constitution gives this court authority to uphold and enforce the Bill of Rights. Article 23(3) lays down the reliefs which the court may grant when considering applications and petitions under article 22 of the Constitution which deals with the enforcement of the Bill of Rights. These includes among others, an injunction and conservatory orders.
3. In an application of this nature, the court consider whether the rights of applicant are likely to be violated or where there is a threat of violation of the rights. This court has jurisdiction under article 165 (3) of the Constitution this court has discretion to determine whether a right or fundamental freedom in the bill of Rights have been denied or threatened, violated and or infringed.
4. In this case I have considered the averments in the affidavit of Getrude Kathomi who has deponed that she is a complainant in Criminal Case No.594/2022. Despite that the D.P.P has ordered that the applicants be arrested and charged. I note that at this stage the State has not responded to the allegations. I however note that the applicants’ rights to liberty are threatened. They may be arrested at any time if anticipatory bail is not granted pending the hearing and determination of this application. The respondent is not likely to suffer any prejudice. In the circumstances I order that the applicants shall execute a bond of Kshs.300,000/- pending the hearing and determination of this application. The anticipatory bail to last for a period of three months. The applicants shall not be arrested if required to appear in court, they shall be served with summons through their advocate.
Order: 5. Hearing of the application to proceed on 17/7/2023.
L.W. GITARIJUDGE23/5/2023