[2021] KEHC 5023 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had not made a ruling on the applicant's bond application despite having set a date for its delivery. The High Court held that it is the obligation of the trial court to make a determination on whether or not to admit the applicant to bail, and that failure to do so is a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5023 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: JMM; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Bond Pending Trial
- Outcome
- Application referred back to trial court for determination of bond application.
- Judges
- GV Odunga
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Compelling Reasons, Judicial Discretion
- 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
JMM
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Bond Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to be admitted to reasonable bond terms pending trial.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to deliver a ruling on the bond application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court had not made a ruling on the applicant's bond application despite having set a date for its delivery. The High Court held that it is the obligation of the trial court to make a determination on whether or not to admit the applicant to bail, and that failure to do so is a procedural lapse. The High Court therefore ordered that the matter be mentioned before the trial court for a determination on the bond application, rather than making the determination itself, thereby upholding the principle that the trial court must address the issue of compelling reasons and make a specific ruling on bail.
Court Disposition
Application referred back to trial court for determination of bond application.
Orders
- Machakos Sexual Offence Case No. E011 of 2020 to be mentioned before the trial court (Hon. Bartoo, SRM) on 27th July, 2021 for determination of the applicant's bond application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
(Coram: Odunga, J)
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NUMBER E027 OF 2021
JMM……………..…....................………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………..………….RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant herein was charged with the offence of attempted incest contrary to section 20(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006 before the Machakos Chief Magistrate Court SO Case No. E011 of 2020.
2. When he was arraigned before Hon. B. J Bartoo, SRM on 23rd September, 2020, he pleaded not guilty and applied to be released on bond. That application was however opposed by the prosecution on the ground that since the victim was a grandchild of the accused, there was likelihood of interference. The Court then set the ruling on 29th September, 2020 and in the meantime directed that a probation officer’s report be availed.
3. On 29th September, 2020, the matter was placed before Hon. Analo, RM and on that day the Applicant was absent. It was then stood over to 6th October, 2020 with the court issuing a production order. Thereafter several mentions took place before different magistrates. It would seem that the issue of the delivery of the ruling got lost somewhere in the labyrinth of the mentions.
4. Before me is a Chamber Summons filed on 10th March, 2021 seeking that the applicant herein be admitted to reasonable bond terms pending the hearing and the determination of the said case.
5. The application was opposed by the Respondent vide grounds of opposition.
Determination
6. I have considered the material before me.
7. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides that:-
An accused person has the right …
(h) to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
8. It is clear that once an accused is arraigned before the trial court, whether or not an application for release on bail is made, it is the duty of the trial court to deal with the issue. It is for the prosecution to present before the court the existence of compelling reasons and in the absence of so doing the accused person is entitled to be released on bail. However, where compelling reasons are given nothing bars the court from denying the release of the accused on bail for a definite period. In other words, the trial court may find from the material placed before it that at that stage it would not be just to release the accused on bail and that the application may be renewed at a later stage when the circumstances have changed, for example where vulnerable witnesses have testified. Either way, the court is obliged to make a ruling on the application. In other words, the Court ought to make a specific finding as to whether or not it is satisfied that compelling reasons exist that militate against the admission of the accused to bail at any particular stage of the proceedings.
9. In this case, it is clear that no ruling has been made in the application for bail despite a date for its delivery having been given. The date for the said delivery passed without the same being made.
10. Since the trial court has not made a ruling on the application, the order which commends itself to me and which I hereby make is that Machakos Sexual Offence Case No. E011 of 2020 be mentioned before the trial court (Hon. Bartoo, SRM) on 27th July, 2021 with a view to making a determination on whether or not to admit the applicant to bail pending trial. It is so ordered.
Read, signed and delivered in open Court at Machakos this 22nd July, 2021.
G.V. ODUNGA
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
The Applicant online
Mr Ngetich for the Respondent
CA Simon