[2013] KEHC 2883 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had provided plausible explanations for his absences from court. On the first occasion, the court accepted that he was misled about the hearing date, and on the second, he was late due to illness. The court determined that these explanations were sufficient to merit the granting of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2883 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Meshack Njogu Kariuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 64 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Bond Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Bond Pending Appeal, Bail Cancellation, Conviction and Sentence, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Meshack Njogu Kariuki
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Bond Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to bond pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the appellant's previous absences from court justified cancellation of bond.
- 3 Whether the explanations given by the appellant for his absences were plausible.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had provided plausible explanations for his absences from court. On the first occasion, the court accepted that he was misled about the hearing date, and on the second, he was late due to illness. The court determined that these explanations were sufficient to merit the granting of bond pending appeal. The application was therefore found to have merit, and the appellant was admitted to bond with specified terms.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The appellant is admitted to a bond of Ksh. 100,000 with one surety of similar amount.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2013
MESHACK NJOGU KARIUKI ….................................………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……….……....................................................…RESPONDEN
RULING
This is an application for bond pending appeal brought under section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The grounds are that the applicant has filed an appeal at the High Court which is No. 64 of 2013. Secondly, that the appeal has high chances of success and thirdly that it may take a while before the appeal is heard and determined.
It is supported by the affidavit of his mother one SUSAN MICHAEL KARIUKI who depones that the Appellant was never accorded an opportunity to be defended by Counsel of his own choice.
That the proceedings were characterized by emotions, leading to cancellation of cash bail and requests for disqualification.
The application is opposed on the grounds that the appellant had severally jumped bail leading to the cancellation of his bond.
I have perused the proceedings of the lower Court and its noted that the Accused had been charged with causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code was Convicted and Sentenced to five years imprisonment.
It is further note that on the 8th day of March, 2012 the Accused was not present in Court. The following day he presented himself in Court where it was explained that the accused had been advised that the matter was listed for 9th March, 2012 but not 8th March, 2012. The bond was reinstated upon that explanation.
On 23rd November, 2012 the Accused was absent when warrants of arrest were issued. The same day at 3:00pm he presented himself in Court and explained that he had fallen ill in the morning due to food poisoning. That explanation was not accepted by the trial magistrate who ordered the cancellation of the bond which was later reinstated on 7th December, 2012 but canceled on 18th April, 2013 to await Judgment on 19th April, 2013 when he was Convicted and Sentenced to five years Imprisonment.
I do find that the Accused had given plausible explanations for his absence in Court. The first time the Court agreed with him that he was misled as to the date of hearing and the second time he was late by several hours.
I find his application has merit. He is admitted to a bond of Ksh. 100,000/= with one surety of similar amount.
Ruling dated and delivered this 5th day of August, 2013.
….................
M. MUYA
JUDGE
5TH AUGUST, 2013
In the presence of:
Learned Counsel for the defence Mr. Gichana
State Counsel absent
Court clerk Mr. Musundi