[2017] KEHC 9770 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 9770 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had abused the privilege of bail by persistently failing to attend court, with their absences not sufficiently justified by their alleged medical conditions. The court was not persuaded by the medical evidence, noting allegations of forged reports and the availability of medical treatment in remand custody. The applicants' conduct demonstrated a pattern intended to frustrate the trial, and their past actions indicated a high risk of absconding if released. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to deny reinstatement of bond, prioritizing the integrity of the trial process and the applicants' availability to stand trial.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 9770 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jonathan Batita; Applicant: Richard Gitau Wari; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 December 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 255 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bond Cancellation
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LK Kimaru
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Trial, Bond Cancellation, Absconding Accused, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Trial Bond Cancellation Absconding Accused Judicial Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Batita

Applicant

Richard Gitau Wari

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bond Cancellation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' failure to attend court justified cancellation of their bonds.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' medical conditions constituted sufficient cause for their absence from court.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to reinstate the applicants' bond terms.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had abused the privilege of bail by persistently failing to attend court, with their absences not sufficiently justified by their alleged medical conditions. The court was not persuaded by the medical evidence, noting allegations of forged reports and the availability of medical treatment in remand custody. The applicants' conduct demonstrated a pattern intended to frustrate the trial, and their past actions indicated a high risk of absconding if released. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to deny reinstatement of bond, prioritizing the integrity of the trial process and the applicants' availability to stand trial.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The applications for reinstatement of bond are dismissed.
  • The applicants shall remain in remand custody pending conclusion of their trial before the trial magistrate’s court.