[2019] KEHC 6970 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant has no fixed abode, his family was unaware of his whereabouts for several years, and neither his family nor the victim's family is willing to guarantee his attendance in court. These facts, coupled with the absence of reliable information about his residence, led the court to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 6970 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jacob Mugambi Gaichu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 2 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Bond Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for bond pending appeal rejected
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Flight Risk, Pre Bail Report
- 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
Jacob Mugambi Gaichu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Bond Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be granted bond pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the appellant poses a flight risk that justifies denial of bond.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant has no fixed abode, his family was unaware of his whereabouts for several years, and neither his family nor the victim's family is willing to guarantee his attendance in court. These facts, coupled with the absence of reliable information about his residence, led the court to conclude that the appellant is a flight risk. The court held that no amount of sureties could guarantee his attendance, constituting a compelling reason to deny bond pending appeal. Accordingly, the application for bail was rejected.
Court Disposition
application for bond pending appeal rejected
Orders
- The application for bail is rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 2 OF 2019
JACOB MUGAMBI GAICHU.................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Before me is the Application for bond made on 6th February 2019. I have considered the application and the grounds thereof. I have also taken into consideration the Pre-bail Report.
Flight Risk
2. The accused person herein has no fixed abode and his family did not known of his whereabouts since the year 2015. Absconding from his family is a red flag that the accused may abscond. One other important detail; the accused lived with his wife and daughter in some place which his family members never knew about. Even as at now, no information or reliable information has been provided to ascertain where he resides. His family members and that of the victim acknowledge that the accused person herein is a flight risk and none of them is prepared to take the responsibility of ensuring his attendance in court for his trial. .
3. The foregoing recapitulation of relevant points justifies a conclusion that the accused is a flight-risk.
4. In the upshot, I am satisfied that the accused is a flight-risk and his attendance in court cannot be guaranteed by any amount of sureties. This is a compelling reason to deny the accused bond. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
Dated, Signed and delivered in open court this 4th June, 2019
----------------------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
IN PRESENCE OF
Chelule for state
Igweta for accused – M/s Materi holding brief
----------------------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE