[2023] KEHC 18957 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 18957 (KLR)

The court found that the application for review of bond terms was not certified as urgent and therefore did not warrant immediate intervention. The court directed that the application and order be served upon the respondent, who was given time to file a response. The matter was scheduled for mention for directions,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 18957 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Caroline Mokere; Appellant: Jackline Sabera; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal E188 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Review of Bond Terms
Outcome
Application not certified urgent; directions given for service and response.
Judges
DR Kavedza
Legal Topics
Bail and Bond Review, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail and Bond Review Interlocutory Applications

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Mokere

Appellant

Jackline Sabera

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Review of Bond Terms

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should review the bond terms set by the Trial Magistrate denying the appellants the option of cash bail.
  2. 2 Whether the application for review is urgent and warrants immediate intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for review of bond terms was not certified as urgent and therefore did not warrant immediate intervention. The court directed that the application and order be served upon the respondent, who was given time to file a response. The matter was scheduled for mention for directions, indicating that the court would consider the merits of the application after hearing both parties. The ruling emphasizes the procedural requirement for service and response before substantive consideration of interlocutory applications for review of bond terms.

Court Disposition

Application not certified urgent; directions given for service and response.

Orders

  • The application is not certified urgent.
  • The application and order of this court be served upon the respondent on 28/6/2023.