[2020] KEHC 332 (KLR)
The High Court held that the trial court did not deny the accused bond, but merely exercised its discretion in assessing and declining the proposed surety based on suitability. The accused remains entitled to bond upon presenting a suitable surety. The High Court found no evidence of unfair denial of bond or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 332 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joel Ouma Jonyo alias Baba Owino; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E010 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Application for Revision of Bond/surety Order
- Outcome
- Application for revision declined.
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Surety Approval, 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
Joel Ouma Jonyo alias Baba Owino
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Application for Revision of Bond/surety Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court unfairly denied the accused bond or imposed unreasonable bond terms.
- 2 Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in assessing the suitability of the proposed surety.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the trial court did not deny the accused bond, but merely exercised its discretion in assessing and declining the proposed surety based on suitability. The accused remains entitled to bond upon presenting a suitable surety. The High Court found no evidence of unfair denial of bond or imposition of unreasonable bond terms, and therefore declined to interfere with the magistrate's discretion regarding surety approval.
Court Disposition
Application for revision declined.
Orders
- The application for revision of the magistrate's order on surety is dismissed.
- The accused may avail another surety for consideration by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MIGORI
CRIMINAL REVISION E010 OF 2020
JOEL OUMA JONYO.............................................APPLICANT
=vs=
REPUBLIC.........................................................RESPONDNENT
REVISION
I have considered the request made by Mr. Ezra Awino Advocate, for revision of the order made by Hon. Maritim on 28th October, 2020. The accused Joel Ouma Jonyo alias Baba Owino faces a charge of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act.
The trial court granted the accused bond of Kshs. 200,000/= with one surety of the same amount. Somebody came to stand surety for the accused but the court declined to approve the said surety after assessing him as to his suitability as a surety.
The court has not denied accused bond as counsel has alleged. It is upon the accused to avail a surety who is acceptable to the court. It is the trial court that examines the surety to determine his suitability. The accused faces a serious offence. In evaluating a surety, the primary consideration by the court is to be satisfied that the surety will be able to avail the accused at the trial. This court will not interfere with the court’s discretion to determine whether the surety is suitable or not. The court may interfere in the exercise of the Court’s discretion only if accused had been unfairly denied bond or given unreasonable bond terms.
In the circumstances, I find no good reason to interfere with the discretion of the magistrate in determining who is a suitable surety. I decline to review the magistrate’s order.
DELIVERED, DATEDandSIGNED at MIGORI this 5th day of November, 2020
R. WENDOH
JUDGE