[2016] KEHC 8029 (KLR)
The court held that there is no legal bar to consolidating bail terms for unrelated offences if no inconvenience is caused to the court or investigators. In this case, both matters are before the same court complex and were investigated within Nairobi, so no inconvenience would arise. The court emphasized that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8029 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nelson Opido Mulati; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 231 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Bail Terms
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AW Macharia
- Legal Topics
- Bail Consolidation, Bond Terms, Pretrial Release, Right to Bail
- 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
Nelson Opido Mulati
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Bail Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bail terms in two unrelated criminal cases can be consolidated for the applicant.
- 2 Whether the current bail terms are excessively stringent and violate the applicant's constitutional right to bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there is no legal bar to consolidating bail terms for unrelated offences if no inconvenience is caused to the court or investigators. In this case, both matters are before the same court complex and were investigated within Nairobi, so no inconvenience would arise. The court emphasized that the purpose of bail is to secure attendance at trial, and that the applicant's continued custody due to inability to meet stringent bail terms would be unjust, especially given the presumption of innocence and the slow progress of the cases. The court found that the applicant's constitutional right to bail under Article 49(i)(h) would be undermined by the existing terms and...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Bond terms in Criminal Cases No. 1280 of 2014 and 1311 of 2014 are consolidated.
- Applicant is released on a cash bail of Kshs. 1 million or a bond of Kshs. 2 million with one surety of a similar amount to be assessed by Court No. 1.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2016
NELSON OPIDO MULATI.......................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The application herein is for consolidation of bail terms granted in two separate criminal trials namely; Cr. Case No. 1311 of 2014 and Cr. Case No. 1280 of 2014. Both are pending for hearing before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani but in different courts. Cr. Case No. 1311 of 2014 is pending before Court number 11 and the Applicant was released on a cash bail of Kshs. 200,000/= or a surety bond of Kshs. 400,000/=. In Cr. Case No. 1280 of 2014, he was released on a cash bail of Kshs. 2 million or a surety bond of Kshs. 5 million. The latter is pending before Court number 1. In that case, he is charged alongside others with two counts robbery with violence and various alternative counts of handling stolen goods. In Cr. Case No. 1311 of 2014, he is charged with house breaking and stealing of property whose total value is Kshs. 885,200/=.
In court, the Applicant submitted that both cases have been pending for the last two years and only one witness has testified in each of the cases. He is so far unable to raise the cash bail and get two sureties for the two separate cases. He pleaded that given an opportunity, he would be able to afford at least one surety. He told the court that at the time of his arrest, he had taken a loan but since his incarceration, the creditor has taken away his movable properties to redeem the loan. This has left him and his family destitute as a result of which his children are not going to school.
Learned State Counsel Ms. Akuja opposed the application stating that the offences with which the Applicant is charged in the two cases are different and are unrelated. The best he can do therefore is to ask for bond reduction.
There is no rule that if offences with which an accused is charged are unrelated bond cannot be consolidated. The test is whether after consolidation, any inconvenience could be occasioned to the court and the investigators. In the instant case, both trials are pending before Milimani Chief Magistrate Courts and the trial magistrates are within the same building. If bond approval documents are filed in both files, the courts would easily make a reference to them in confirming whether the accused has been released on bail or bond. The matters were also investigated within Nairobi and so no inconvenience will be occasioned to the investigators. It is also important to note that the main purpose for granting bond is so as to ensure that an accused attends court. In the present case, only one witness in the respect of each case has testified in the last two years. This means that it is not in the interest of justice that the Applicant continues to languish in custody. I am more minded by the fact that the Applicant is deemed innocent until proven guilty and therefore the stringent terms of bond negates his constitutional right to bond as envisaged under Article 49(i)(h) of the Constitution.
Having made this observation, it is my view that the Applicant’s application should succeed and I allow the same. I consolidate the bond terms in respect of both Criminal Cases No. 1280 of 2014 and 1311 of 2014. The Applicant is hereby released on a cash bail of Kshs. 1 million or a bond of Kshs. 2 million with one surety of a similar amount to be assessed by Court No. 1. The approval bond term documents shall be filed in both trial files. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH JULY, 2016.
G. W. NGENYE MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
1. Applicant in person.
2. M/s Kimuri for the Respondent.