[2012] KEHC 26 (KLR)
The court held that the right to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution applies to persons pending charge or trial, not after conviction. However, bail pending appeal is not expressly prohibited but is only granted in very restricted circumstances. The most important consideration is whether the appeal has...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 26 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Geoffrey Mureithi Munene; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 192 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Presumption of Innocence, Conviction and Sentence
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Geoffrey Mureithi Munene
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to bail pending appeal after conviction.
- 2 Whether the appellant has demonstrated overwhelming chances of success in the appeal.
- 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant grant of bail pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the right to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution applies to persons pending charge or trial, not after conviction. However, bail pending appeal is not expressly prohibited but is only granted in very restricted circumstances. The most important consideration is whether the appeal has overwhelming chances of success. The appellant failed to demonstrate, either in his affidavit or submissions, that his appeal had overwhelming chances of success or that there were exceptional circumstances. Mere assertions of contradictions in evidence or the length of time in custody are insufficient grounds. Therefore, the application for bail pending appeal lacked merit and...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.
- The four consolidated appeals to be given a hearing date on a priority basis within the first High Court term of 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Machakos
Criminal Appeal 192 of 2009 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]
FROM ORIGINAL CR. CASE FILE NO. 826/05 AT CM’S COURT MACHAKOS
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 165 (3)
IN THE MATTE ROF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER SECTION 49 (1) (h) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
IN THE MATTER OF HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192/07 AND CM’S COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 829/05
GEOFFREY MUREITHI MUNENE ..…….……………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………………....…………. RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Before me is an application dated 7th August 2012 filed by Geoffrey Mureithi Munene, one of the appellants herein. It is an application for bail pending appeal.
The application was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn by the appellant. It was deponed that the court had powers to grant bail or bond as provided for under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution of Kenya. That the appellant will be easily available at any given time and date. That prior to arrest, he was a hardworking Kenyan businessman and had now been in custody for about 7 years. That the prosecution case was flawed with doubts, inconsistencies and contradictions, and that the decision of the magistrate was against the weight of the evidence.
At the hearing of the application, the applicant urged the court to grant him bail pending appeal.
The learned State Counsel Ms. Kwamboka opposed the application. Counsel argued that in the supporting affidavit, the applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal had overwhelming chances of success. Counsel submitted that the Constitution only provided for a right to bail pending trial, since the presumption of innocence ceased once someone was convicted.
Indeed, Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution provides for the right of an arrested person to be released on bail. It states:-
49(1) an arrested person has the right
(h) to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
The above provisions of the Constitution clearly provide for the right to bail pending charge or trial. They do not provide for bail after conviction. However, the same is not prohibited.
Courts in Kenya have held that though the presumption of innocence ceases on conviction, bail can still be granted pending appeal, but subject to very restricted conditions. In Somo –vs- Republic (1972) EA 476, the High Court in Kenya, after considering a number of decisions, stated that the most important consideration in such an application is whether the appeal of the applicant has overwhelming chances of success.
In my view, the burden is on an applicant for bail pending appeal to demonstrate whether his/her appeal has overwhelming chances of success. As the learned State Counsel has stated, the applicant herein has not demonstrated either in his affidavit in support of the application or in his submissions that his appeal has overwhelming chances of success. Merely stating that there are contradictions in evidence, without demonstrating the overwhelming chances of success of the appeal, is not enough. The fact that an applicant has been in custody for long and his business has suffered, is also no ground to release a convicted person on bail pending appeal.
From the court record, I find that on 14/6//2012, the appeals herein, which are four in number, were listed for hearing on 22/11/2012. However on 7/8/2012, this application was filed by the applicant, thus delaying the hearing of the appeal further. In my view, the only sensible solution is to have the appeals heard on priority basis, as the applicant has not demonstrated that the appeal has overwhelming chances of success, or exceptional circumstances.
Coming to the application for bail pending appeal herein, I find no merits in the same. It is dismissed. I order that the four appeals which have already been consolidated be given a hearing date on priority basis. The Deputy Registrar to ensure that the appeals are given a hearing date within the first High Court term of 2013.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 18thday of December2012.
George Dulu
Judge
In presence of:-
Applicant present in person
N/A for State
Mutinda – Court clerk
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US 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:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]