[2020] KEHC 1291 (KLR)
The court held that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of actual or perceived interference with witnesses beyond the mere fact that the accused and witnesses reside in the same neighbourhood and know each other. The court found that such unsubstantiated fears do not amount to compelling reasons...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1291 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Wambui Mburu; Applicant: Ann Wanjiku Njeri; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E013 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- Objection to bail dismissed; bail granted to both applicants on specified terms.
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Mary Wambui Mburu
Applicant
Ann Wanjiku Njeri
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
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 the prosecution has demonstrated compelling reasons to deny bail, specifically the likelihood of interference with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of actual or perceived interference with witnesses beyond the mere fact that the accused and witnesses reside in the same neighbourhood and know each other. The court found that such unsubstantiated fears do not amount to compelling reasons sufficient to deny the constitutional right to bail. The objection by the prosecution was dismissed, and the applicants were granted bail on specified terms.
Court Disposition
Objection to bail dismissed; bail granted to both applicants on specified terms.
Orders
- Each accused to be released on a bond of Ksh.1 million with one surety of a similar amount.
- Alternatively, each accused may be released on a cash bail of Ksh.200,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO.E013 OF 2020
MARY WAMBUI MBURU...................................................................................APPLICANT
ANN WANJIKU NJERI.......................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
Both accused’s MARY WAIRIMU MBURU and ANN WANJIKU NJERU, have applied to this court that they be released on bail pending trial in this case. The counsel for the Defendants filed submissions in plea for bail. Basically, that bail is a constitutional right of every accused person, only to be denied upon proof of existence of compelling reasons. The applications were based on Article 49(1)(h) of the constitution. Both gave undertakings that the accused shall abide by any conditions that the court would place on the grant of bail.
The prosecution has, however opposed this application for bail. First, on the ground that the accuseds and the witnesses are personally known to each other as they stay in the same neighbourhood. And so, there is a likelihood of accused interfering with the witnesses if released on bail.
Under Article 49(1)(h), the right to pre-trial bail is accorded to all accused persons irrespective of the nature of the charges they are facing. The same right may be denied if the prosecution proves the existence of any compelling reason i.e, reasons that are good enough as to justify a denial of the right to pre-trial bail.
In this case, the prosecution has raised only 1 ground in opposing release of the accused’s in bail. That they are likely to interfere with the prosecution witnesses who are well known to the accused and who also stay in the same neighbourhood. The fact that the accuseds and the unnamed witnesses known each other and stay in the same neighbourhood is conceded by the defence sides.
But can this alone be a compelling reason enough for the constitutional right to bail to be denied to the accused? I do not think so. In the case of Republic versus Richard David Alden (2016)eKLR, the Hon. Lady Justice Lesiit determining on this issue, held;
“for the prosecution to succeed in persuading the court on this criteria (of interference), it must place material before the court which demonstrate actual or perceived interference. It must show the court for example the existence of a threat or threats to witnesses; direct indirect incriminating communication between the accused and witnesses…….. at least some facts must be placed before court, otherwise it is asking the court to speculate.”
I stand guided by this finding. Basically, that there must be some evidence shown to court, of the alleged interference. Failure to show such evidence to court therefore leaves the allegation of likelihood of interference with witnesses an unproved fear which, respectfully cannot amount to a compelling reasons.
I accordingly do not find any merits in the objection raised by the state to the applications for bail by the accuseds. I dismiss this objection, and order that both accused 1 and 2 may be release on bond on the following terms:
i) Each accused to be released on a bond of Ksh.1 million with 1 surety each of a similar amount.
ii) In the alternative, each accused may be released on a cash bail each of Ksh.200,000/=.
iii) Accused are ordered, upon release, never to interfere with and or contact any prosecution witness, either directly or indirectly till this case is determined.
iv) Each accused to furnish specific details of where they will reside upon reason, including relevant phone numbers.
v) They are ordered to attend court of all times as may be ordered by the court till this case is determined.
Orders accordingly.
HON. JUSTICE D. OGEMBO OGOLA
23RD OCTOBER 2020
Court:
Ruling read out in open court (online in presence of the accused, Mr. Farah for accused 1 and holding brief for Mr. Abenga for accused 2 and Ms. Akunja for the state.
HON. JUSTICE D. OGEMBO OGOLA
23RD OCTOBER 2020