[2017] KEHC 1181 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had not satisfied the requirement of demonstrating that his appeal had high chances of success. The appellant's defence was controverted, and there was no explanation as to why those who claimed he had hired them to commit an offence would fabricate evidence against him....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1181 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Moses Kathiari Rukunga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 112 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Bond Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bond Pending Appeal, Bail Principles, Appellate Review
- 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
Moses Kathiari Rukunga
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 has demonstrated that the appeal has high chances of success.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had not satisfied the requirement of demonstrating that his appeal had high chances of success. The appellant's defence was controverted, and there was no explanation as to why those who claimed he had hired them to commit an offence would fabricate evidence against him. Consequently, the court held that the appellant was not entitled to bond pending appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bond pending appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAVL CASE NO. 112 OF 2017
MOSES KATHIARI RUKUNGA ...........APPELLANT
VS
REPUBLIC ........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant/Appellant herein applied to be released on bond pending appeal. I have considered the evidence on record and particularly the fact that appellants defence was controverted as well as the fact there is no explanation why those who claimed he had hired them to commit an offence could fabricate him and I do find no explanation. I do find that the applicant has not satisfied the court that his appeal has high chances of success to enable the court grant bond pending appeal.
The application is dismissed.
HON A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
19. 12. 2017
Before Adwera –Ong’injo Judge
Penina C/A
Mr Kinyua for State
Mr Kithinji J Advocate for Appellant
Appellant – N/A
Court
Ruling, Delivered, Dated and Signed in Court.
Court
Ruling delivered dated and signed in court.
HON A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE