[2013] KEHC 5094 (KLR)
Although the applicants have a constitutional right to bail and there are no compelling reasons presented to deny them bail, the High Court declined to grant the orders sought because a similar application was already pending before the trial court. The court emphasized that it does not make orders in vain and, in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5094 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Onguti Mose; Applicant: Dennis Change Mirwoba; Applicant: Peter Nyarangi Mose alias Peter Mogaka Nyarangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 149 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Right to 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
Joseph Onguti Mose
Applicant
Dennis Change Mirwoba
Applicant
Peter Nyarangi Mose alias Peter Mogaka Nyarangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to bail pending hearing and determination of the criminal case against them.
- 2 Whether the existence of a similar application pending before the trial court precludes the High Court from granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the applicants have a constitutional right to bail and there are no compelling reasons presented to deny them bail, the High Court declined to grant the orders sought because a similar application was already pending before the trial court. The court emphasized that it does not make orders in vain and, in the absence of information on whether the pending application had been granted or not, it was inappropriate to entertain the present application. The application was therefore struck out, but the applicants were granted liberty to file a fresh application should the one before the trial court be dismissed.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application is struck out.
- Applicants are at liberty to file a fresh application should the application pending before the trial court be dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court of Kisii
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 149 of 2012 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]
JOSEPH ONGUTI MOSE........................................................................1ST APPLICANT
DENNIS CHANGE MIRWOBA................................................................2ND APPLICANT
PETER NYARANGI MOSE aliasPETER MOGAKA NYARANGI........3RD APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application before me is a chamber summons dated 19th December 2012 brought undersection 123 (3)of theCriminal Procedure Code Cap 75of the Laws of KenyaandArticle 49 (1)of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The applicants seek to be released on bail pending hearing and determination of the case against them being Kilgoris PMC Criminal Case Number 976 of 2012.
2. The application is supported by the grounds set out on the face thereof and in the main it is contended that the trial magistrate is on leave and that in the meantime, the magistrate on duty hasdeclined to entertain the application for bond. The applicants also contend that they are entitled to bond as provided by the Constitution of Kenya, 201
3. There was no response to the application though the respondent was duly served. At the hearing of the application on 20th December 2012, Mr. Nyasimi who appeared for the applicants informed the court that there was a similar application pending before the trial court but that he had filed the instant application on behalf of his clients because the trial magistrate was on leave.
4. In his response, counsel for the respondent submitted that this court has power to grant the orders sought and that it is the applicants’ constitutional right to be admitted to bail on such terms as the court may impose.
5. I have carefully considered the application and the submissions made by both parties. I have also considered the law. Though there do not appear to be any compelling reasons why the applicants should not be admitted to bail, I note that courts do not make orders in vain. Since there is a similar application pendingbefore the trial court, and it being unknown to this court whether such application has been granted or not, I decline to grant the orders sought herein. The instant application is therefore struck out. Applicants are however at liberty to file a fresh application should the application pending before the trial court be dismissed.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Kisii this 24th day of January, 2013.
RUTH NEKOYE SITATI
JUDGE.
In the presence of:
Mr. Nyasimi (present) for Applicants
Mr. Shabola (present) for Respondents
Mr. Bibu - Court Clerk
RUTH NEKOYE SITATI
JUDGE.