[2005] KEHC 180 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's bond was properly cancelled due to his three prior convictions (one completed probation, two on bail pending appeal) and the existence of three additional pending cases of a similar nature. The offences charged are serious and relate to fraud, and the applicant's criminal history...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 180 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mburu Muiruri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application 702 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Bond
- Outcome
- application for reinstatement of bond refused
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Bail Application, Bond Cancellation, Presumption of Innocence, Repeat Offending, Interference With Witnesses
- 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
John Mburu Muiruri
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Bond
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's bond should be reinstated after cancellation by the Chief Magistrate.
- 2 Whether the applicant's previous convictions and pending cases justify refusal of bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's bond was properly cancelled due to his three prior convictions (one completed probation, two on bail pending appeal) and the existence of three additional pending cases of a similar nature. The offences charged are serious and relate to fraud, and the applicant's criminal history and ongoing cases raise a reasonable belief that he may reoffend or fail to attend trial. These factors, combined with the grounds advanced by the state counsel, constitute compelling reasons to refuse reinstatement of bail. The presumption of innocence does not override these specific risks in the circumstances of this case.
Court Disposition
application for reinstatement of bond refused
Orders
- The application for reinstatement of bond is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
CRIMINAL APPLICATION 702 OF 2004
(In the matter of an intended appeal)
BETWEEN
JOHN MBURU MUIRURI ……………......................….APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………….................…….RESPONDENT
RULING
The accused is charged with 5 counts of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code. He appeared before the Learned Chief Magistrate on 31st May 2004 and pleaded not guilty to all the counts.
The hearing date was fixed for 5th August 2004 and the applicant was released on bond of Shs.400,000/= with 2 sureties. But on 28th June 2004 his bond was cancelled by the Chief Magistrate hence this application to have his bond reinstated.
In principle, because of the presumption that a person charged with a criminal offence is innocent until his guilt is proved, an accused person who has not been tried should be granted bail. But there are well defined grounds on which it is proper to oppose or refuse bail. The overriding is the likelihood of the accused person attending his trial. If there is any reasonable doubt about this, or the sureties ordered cannot be regarded as sufficiently reliable, bail should be refused. Secondly the likelihood of interference with the witnesses, actual or threatened. The third ground is the seriousness of the offence charged. The fourth ground is that bail may quite reasonably be refused or opposed if there are grounds for belief that the offender will repeat the offence. And lastly the character and antecedents of the accused.
The applicant’s bond was cancelled because he has three convictions. One he was placed on probation which he has completed and two he is out on bail pending appeal. In addition he again has 3 cases in which he is awaiting trial.
In the present case the applicant is charged with 5 counts all of similar nature relating to fraud.
All this coupled with those grounds put forward by the learned state counsel when the bond was cancelled compel me to find that the applicant’s bail ought not be reinstated. In the result the application is refused.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 8th day of February 2005.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE