[2016] KEHC 4528 (KLR)
The court found that the issue of flight risk had already been fully canvassed and determined in the earlier application for bail, where it was held that the accused was a flight risk. The applicant failed to present any new facts or circumstances that would justify a departure from the previous ruling. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 4528 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Ng’ang’a Kamau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 8 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Second Bail Application Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Flight Risk, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Peter Ng’ang’a Kamau
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Second Bail Application Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be admitted to bail pending conclusion of his trial.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons, specifically risk of flight, to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issue of flight risk had already been fully canvassed and determined in the earlier application for bail, where it was held that the accused was a flight risk. The applicant failed to present any new facts or circumstances that would justify a departure from the previous ruling. The court also noted that the trial was now quite advanced, but this did not alter the assessment of flight risk. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail pending trial is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL CASE NO 8 OF 2014
PETER NG’ANG’A KAMAU...........................................ACCUSED
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................................PROSECUTOR
R U L I N G
1. By a ruling dated and delivered on 21/11/2014, this court (Waweru, J) refused the Accused person’s application to be admitted to bail pending his trial. In doing so the court stated –
“In these circumstances I consider that there is a real flight risk should the Accused person be released on bail. That is a compelling reason not to release him. The fact that there are other suspects who are still at large is an added risk.”
2. The accused has again applied by notice of motion dated 13/10/2015 to be admitted to bail pending conclusion of his trial. The grounds for this second application are –
i. That the trial has proceeded considerably and that therefore there is no likelihood of interference with witnesses.
ii. That he has a home and family and is not likely to abscond.
iii. That he is willing to abide by such terms as the court might set.
3. In his supporting affidavit the Accused has deponed at paragraph 6, in effect, that he never went underground after commission of the alleged offence and was all the time at Kitengela where he was carrying on business, and not hiding.
4. The issue of whether or not the Accused was a flight risk was canvassed fully at the hearing of the Accused’s first application for bail. This court ruled that he was indeed a flight risk and refused him bail. Nothing has changed to alter that position. Nothing new has been placed before the court as would entitle it to depart from its earlier finding. I also note that the Accused’s trial is now quite advanced.
5. This new application is without merit and is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A ON THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016