[2015] KEHC 7990 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any infringement or real threat to his constitutional rights that would justify the grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations of being followed by unknown persons were unsubstantiated, and there was no evidence that these individuals were police officers or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 7990 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Moses Muturi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application Application394 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Anticipatory Bail Pending Arrest
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Right to Liberty, Criminal Investigation Procedure, Constitutional Rights Enforcement
- 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 Muturi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Anticipatory Bail Pending Arrest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated infringement or imminent threat to his constitutional rights to warrant grant of anticipatory bail pending arrest.
- 2 Whether unsubstantiated allegations of being followed by unknown persons justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any infringement or real threat to his constitutional rights that would justify the grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations of being followed by unknown persons were unsubstantiated, and there was no evidence that these individuals were police officers or that any complaint had been lodged against the applicant. The court emphasized that the mere act of writing complaint letters does not suffice to establish a threat to constitutional rights. Furthermore, the Constitution provides adequate safeguards for persons arrested by the police, including the requirement to be brought before a court within 24 hours. Granting anticipatory...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for anticipatory bail pending arrest is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2015
MOSES MUTURI…………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………..RESPONDENT
RULING
The application being for orders for anticipatory bond/bail pending arrest, the litmus test is that the Applicant must demonstrate that his constitutional rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights have been infringed on or that there is serious threat to breach of his rights if the anticipatory bail is not granted.
In the present case, the Applicant was an International Financial Controller employed by Harshi Energy Limited in control of Tanzania, Zambia and Congo. During his tenure, there were allegations that he swindled $ 2 million from the Tanzanian Branch. As a result, his contract was terminated. He has since been living in Kenya. His complaint is that some people who claim to be CID Officers have been following him on claims that they have been sent by his former employer to investigate the loss of the money. They have been asking him to meet in places other than at Police Stations. When he shows up at the appointed venue, the alleged strangers do not show up. He has written letters to his former employer enquiring on whether they are conducting any investigations on the matter but there has not been any response. He has also written several letters to the Director of Criminal Investigations enquiring on the alleged investigations and registered his concern about the strangers but the same have not been responded to. This has caused him a lot of mental anguish as a result of which he prays that he be granted bail pending arrest. He argues that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the police officers when called upon to give any information to them.
Learned state counsel Ms. Aluda opposed the application. She submitted that bail pending arrest cannot be granted based on unsubstantiated allegations. She stated that the persons who are allegedly following the Applicant have not been confirmed to be Police Officers. Furthermore, since the Applicant has conceded that his employment was terminated on allegations of theft, if need be, the police should be given their space to conduct investigations.
I have previously stated that police have a duty and are obligated as their core mandate to conduct investigations of a complaint lodged with them. Although there is no prove in the present case that a complaint has been lodged, the Applicant is not in a position to demonstrate that the persons allegedly following him are police officers. In that regard, he should record a statement with the police if he fears that the persons following him are up to no good. The mere fact of writing a complaint letter cannot suffice. Without any evidence of the allegations leveled against the police, it is difficult for this court to grant him the orders he seeks. He has conceded he was terminated based on allegations of theft against him. If the police are intent on investigating the matter, he should cooperate with them when required to do so. So far, he has not demonstrated that his constitutional rights have been infringed on or that there is serious breach to his rights to warrant the orders he seeks. Moreover, the Constitution has put in place safeguards that ensure that if a person is put in police custody, he cannot be held for more than 24 hours before he is arraigned in court. The arrest of as suspect is part of the process of investigations. If this court were to order that the suspects be not arrested without any justifiable cause, it would set a bad precedent by hampering the police from conducting smooth investigations. That is not the intended purposes for granting bail pending arrest. The Applicant herein has not passed the test required of him in seeking bail pending arrest. The application has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.
DATED and DELIVERED this 17th day of November, 2015.
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Osoro h/b for Mrs. Lumumba for the Applicant
No appearance for the Respondent.