[2020] KEHC 1861 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 1861 (KLR)

The court held that the purpose of bail review is to assist accused persons who are unable to meet the bond terms set by the trial court and remain in custody as a result. Since the applicants had already posted bail and were released from custody, their application for review of bond terms was without merit. The court emphasized that allowing such applications after release would open the floodgates to unnecessary interlocutory applications and undermine the efficient administration of justice. The court found no error or unreasonableness in the bond terms set by the trial court and dismissed the application.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 1861 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Harish Mawjee; Applicant: Bhavin Devji; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 November 2020
Case Number
Criminal Revision 545 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Terms
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
CJ Kendagor
Legal Topics
Bail Review, Bond Terms, Judicial Discretion, Right to Fair Trial
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Review Bond Terms Judicial Discretion Right to Fair Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harish Mawjee

Applicant

Bhavin Devji

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Terms

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can review bail terms after the applicants have already posted bail and been released from custody.
  2. 2 Whether the bond terms imposed by the trial court were unreasonable or excessive in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the purpose of bail review is to assist accused persons who are unable to meet the bond terms set by the trial court and remain in custody as a result. Since the applicants had already posted bail and were released from custody, their application for review of bond terms was without merit. The court emphasized that allowing such applications after release would open the floodgates to unnecessary interlocutory applications and undermine the efficient administration of justice. The court found no error or unreasonableness in the bond terms set by the trial court and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review of bond terms is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.