[2022] KEHC 14941 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's multiple charges relate to different complainants, particulars, and dates, justifying separate trials and, consequently, separate bond terms. The trial magistrate has discretion in setting bond, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the bond amounts in each case were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 14941 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bhavesh Prabhodas Nadha; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E033 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond Terms
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond Terms, Judicial Discretion, Criminal Procedure, Multiple Charges Management
- 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
Bhavesh Prabhodas Nadha
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review or consolidation of bond terms across multiple criminal cases.
- 2 Whether the bond terms imposed in each case are excessive or unlawful.
- 3 Whether the distinct nature of the charges justifies separate bonds.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant's multiple charges relate to different complainants, particulars, and dates, justifying separate trials and, consequently, separate bond terms. The trial magistrate has discretion in setting bond, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the bond amounts in each case were excessive or unlawful. While the total bond sum is significant, consolidation is not warranted due to the distinct nature of the cases and practical difficulties in managing consolidated bonds across different magistrates. The application for revision or consolidation of bond terms was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision or consolidation of bond terms is dismissed.
- Each case to proceed with its existing bond terms.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Nadha v Republic (Criminal Revision E033 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14941 (KLR) (Crim) (4 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 14941 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E033 of 2022
K Kimondo, J
November 4, 2022
Between
Bhavesh Prabhodas Nadha
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant seeks review of his bond terms; or, in the alternative, a reasonable and consolidated bond to apply to all the 12 criminal cases facing him in the subordinate court. The request for revision is contained in the notice of motion dated 3rd March 2022.
2. The cases are all pending before the Makadara Chief Magistrate’s Court and numbered 3659 of 2021, 3705 of 2021, 3708 of 2021, 3709 of 2021, 3710 of 2021, 3711 of 2021, 3712 of 2021, 3713 of 2021, 3714 of 2021, 3715 of 2021, 3716 of 2021 and 3717 of 2021.
3. All of them relate to charges of obtaining money by false pretences from different complainants contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code.
4. In a nutshell, he has been granted bond in all the cases but he contends that grand total is too steep. He contends that unless they are consolidated or reviewed into a single reasonable bond, he will be unable to comply.
5. His learned counsel, Ms Ozwara, submitted that the accused is the bread-winner for his family; that he is sickly and his condition has deteriorated in custody; that he requires a specialized diet; and, that bail remains a constitutional right
6. The motion is contested vide grounds of opposition dated October 24, 2022. The republic contends that the trials are distinct and relate to different transactions and complainants. Furthermore, it was argued that it would jeopardize supervision of the bonds or sureties; and, that in any case, there is no evidence of the applicant’s inability to meet the bond terms.
7. I take the following view of the matter. Firstly, all the charges relate to different particulars, dates and complainants. That is why the applicant is facing separate trials. For similar reasons, the trials cannot be consolidated.
8. Secondly, the applicant has been granted bond in all those cases from a low of Kshs 10,000 to a high of Kshs 200,000. The bail terms seem to be generally guided by the gravity of the offence or the sums allegedly obtained by false pretences.
9. Thirdly, the trial magistrate has discretion in setting the terms of bail. I am unable to say that the applicant has demonstrated that the bonds issued in each of those cases were exorbitant or fell afoul of the law or the institution’s bond and bail policy. Paraphrased, there is no ground to reduce the bonds in each of those cases.
10. That said, I agree that the total sums in all the bonds amount to a significant sum. But I am not persuaded to grant a consolidated bond for the following further reasons. As stated, the trials relate to distinct events and different complainants. The cases may be all in the same court house but they are before different trial magistrates. From a managerial perspective, it would make the administration of the bonds or sureties cumbrous. I am well guided by Kimaru J (as he then was) in Jackson Ngui Kisaa v R, High Court, Nairobi Misc. Appl. 48 of 2017 [2017] eKLR.
11. The upshot is that the revision is unmerited and is hereby dismissed.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022. KANYI KIMONDOJUDGERuling read virtually on Microsoft Teams in the presence of:Applicant via video link.Ms. Ozwara for the applicant.Mr. Mutuma for the respondent instructed by the office of the Director of Public prosecutions.Mr. Edwin Ombuna, Court Assistant.