[2014] KEHC 7429 (KLR)
The court held that the right to bail under Article 49(1) of the Constitution is limited to accused persons and does not extend to those already convicted. The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional or unusual circumstances warranting release on bail pending appeal. The existence of a minor child was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7429 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Morine Syokau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 170 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Bail Pending Appeal Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Exceptional Circumstances, Convicted Persons 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
Morine Syokau
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Pending Appeal Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending appeal after conviction.
- 2 Whether the existence of a minor child constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying bail pending appeal.
- 3 Whether Article 49(1) of the Constitution applies to convicted persons seeking bail pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the right to bail under Article 49(1) of the Constitution is limited to accused persons and does not extend to those already convicted. The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional or unusual circumstances warranting release on bail pending appeal. The existence of a minor child was not considered an exceptional circumstance. Furthermore, the applicant did not show that there was clear evidence overlooked by the trial court that would likely result in the conviction being overturned on appeal. The court found that the appeal did not have an overwhelming chance of success and that the interests of justice did not require granting bail. Accordingly, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.
- The court will hear the appeal on a priority basis.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
155/2014
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2013
MORINE SYOKAU ..................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ...........................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
By an application dated 8th August, 2013, Morine Syokau seeks to be released on bail pending appeal with fair and favourable terms. It is premised on grounds that having been tried, convicted and sentenced to four (4) yearsimprisonment she is dissatisfied with the judgment and sentence and intends to lodge an appeal to the High Court; given the time that may be taken in hearing of the appeal, it may be rendered nugatory and that the applicant has a six (6) years old child who is of school going age and needs her attention and care.
Mr. Mugu for the applicant reiterated what was stated in the body of the application and added that it is in the interest of justice that the applicant be released on bail of Kshs. 10,000/=. Further he stated that the applicant would attend court without failure as she did in the Lower Court and it was her right to be out on bail considering the provisions of the Constitution, Article 49 (1).
Mr. Mwangi, learned State Counsel strongly opposed the application. He argued that Article 49(1)of the Constitutiondid not apply in the instant case as the applicant had been convicted therefore she was not an accused person. He called upon the court to consider the nature of offence the applicant was convicted of and the fact that the appeal was not arguable. He called upon the court to hear the appeal on priority basis instead of releasing the applicant on bail.
The principles that guide the court in reaching a decision to release a convict on bail or reject the application of that nature were considered in the case ofJivraj Shah versus Republic [1986] LLR 605. The Court of Appeal stated thus;-
“1. The principle consideration in an application for bail pending appeal is the existence of exceptional or unusual circumstances upon which the court of Appeal can fairly conclude that it is in the interest of justice to grant bail.
2. It appears prima facie from the totality of the circumstances that the appeal is likely to be successful on account of some substantial point of law to be urged and that the sentence or substantial part of it will have been served by the time the appeal is heard, conditions of granting bail will exist”.
I have carefully perused the record of appeal. The applicant was charged with the offence of administering poison with intent to harm contrary to Section 236 of the Penal Code.
As correctly pointed out by the learned State Counsel, the fundamental right enshrined in Article 49(1((h) of the Constitution is in respect of accused persons but not convicted persons who have been proven guilty. It can therefore not be applicable in the instant case.
The applicant had a duty of demonstrating that there was clear evidence overlooked by the trial court which upon consideration by this court will result into her conviction being reversed. This was not done. This is a case with complex issues that ought to be determined on appeal. The appeal cannot be dismissed as one having overwhelming chance of succeeding.
The issue of the applicant having a minor child cannot be said to be an exceptional circumstance that should make this court conclude that it is in the interest of justice to have her released on bail.
In the result, I dismiss the application. This court is however ready to hear the appeal on priority basis.
It is so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED this 15th day of JANUARY, 2014.
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE