[2002] KEHC 342 (KLR)
The court found no reason to disagree with the consensus of both counsels that the applicant should be granted bond. The application for bail pending appeal was therefore allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on his own bond of Ksh.100,000 with one Kenyan surety of the like amount, or to continue...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 342 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Martins Emeka Uzum; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 899 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Bond Conditions
- 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
Martins Emeka Uzum
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no reason to disagree with the consensus of both counsels that the applicant should be granted bond. The application for bail pending appeal was therefore allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on his own bond of Ksh.100,000 with one Kenyan surety of the like amount, or to continue serving the sentence if the bond is not executed.
Court Disposition
application_allowed
Orders
- The applicant will be released on his own bond of Ksh.100,000 with one Kenyan surety of the like amount or continue serving the sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.899 OF 2002
MARTINS EMEKA UZUM………………………………. APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC ……………………………………………… RESPONDENT RULING
The applicant who was represented by Mr. Kang’ahi applied for bail pending appeal which application was not opposed by Mr. Monda for the state, I have considered the application carefully. I have no reason to make me disagree with both Mr. Kang’ahi and Mr. Monda that the applicant should not be granted bond.
I therefore allow this application. The applicant will be released on his own bond of Ksh.100,000/= one surety of the like amount (Kenyan surety) or continue serving the sentence.
Order accordingly. R.M. MUTITU JUDGE 11/12/2002
Delivered in the presence of the applicant and Monda for the state. R.M. MUTITU JUDGE 11/12/2002