[2016] KEHC 5125 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish compelling reasons to deny bail. Although the investigating officer claimed the applicants had no fixed abode, the pre-bail reports confirmed their origin from Embu and positive community standing. The applicants' relatives and local administration were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5125 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Njue Ndwiga; Applicant: John Nyaga Njagi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 83 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- Bail granted to both applicants on specified terms.
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Flight Risk, Murder Charge
- 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 Njue Ndwiga
Applicant
John Nyaga Njagi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the applicants bail.
- 3 Whether the applicants are a flight risk due to lack of fixed abode.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish compelling reasons to deny bail. Although the investigating officer claimed the applicants had no fixed abode, the pre-bail reports confirmed their origin from Embu and positive community standing. The applicants' relatives and local administration were interviewed, and no evidence was presented to show they were a flight risk or would interfere with witnesses. The seriousness of the charge alone was not sufficient to deny bail. The court concluded that the constitutional right to bail prevails in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary.
Court Disposition
Bail granted to both applicants on specified terms.
Orders
- Each accused may be released on bond of KShs.300,000 plus one surety of like sum or cash bail of KShs.100,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 83 OF 2014
JOHN NJUE NDWIGA ………………………… 1st APPLICANT
JOHN NYAGA NJAGI ……………........…..…. 2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUB…………………………..…….……. RESPONDENT
RULING
The accused persons are charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code CAP 63 of the Laws of Kenya.
By two Notice of Motion Applications dated 16th December 2015, the accused persons have sought to be released on bail pending the hearing and determination of this case.
The applicants contend that they have an unqualified Constitutional right to be released on bail on reasonable terms and that they are not aware of any compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as to why they should not be released on bail/bond.
The application was opposed by Mr. Mulochi, Counsel for the State who relied on an affidavit sworn by PC Alex Kesses, the investigations officer. He deposed that the accused persons do not hail from Mutuati; that their home particulars were unknown; that he tried getting their identity cards but they did not furnish him with any. He therefore contended that the accused have no fixed abode and that they should not be granted bond since they are a flight risk.
The court called for pre-bail reports. According to the pre-bail reports filed in court on 11th April 2016, the same were positive of the accused persons who were said to be of good conduct. Members of the community where accused persons worked and the local administration were welcome to the idea of the accused persons release on bond since to them the accused persons led a legitimate lifestyle and were not a threat to the community. The family members of the deceased were said to be migrant workers from another district and were not traced to give their opinion on the matter.
In a bond application, the court considers the following principles:
Whether the accused will turn up for his trial;
The seriousness of the charge;
Character and antecedents of the accused person;
Whether the security of the accused will be guaranteed if released;
Whether the accused will interfere with witnesses.
Though the investigation officer deponed that the accused’s homes were unknown, the pre-bail reports did disclose that the accused come from Embu. Accuseds’ relatives were interviewed by the Probation Officers and so were the local administration. For that reason, the accused persons are not a flight risk. So far, there are no compelling reasons to deny the accused persons bond. Each accused may be released on bond of KShs.300,000/= plus one surety of like sum or cash bail of KShs.100,000/-.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2016.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
18/5/2016
PRESENT
Mr. Mulochi for State
Mr. Nyenyire Holding Brief for Mr. Manyara for Accused
Ibrahim/Peninah, Court Assistants
Present, Accused