[2022] KEHC 15778 (KLR)
The court found that the accused had not demonstrated any change in circumstances since the original bail order of October 25, 2021. The application for revision was based solely on the accused's inability to meet the bail terms, which had already been considered by the court previously. The judge held that the bail...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15778 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Francis Wanjohi Mubia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 30 November 2022
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 69 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bail Terms
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Bail Conditions, Revision of Orders, Pretrial Release, Judicial Discretion
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Francis Wanjohi Mubia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bail Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused has demonstrated sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a revision of the bail terms previously set by the court.
- 2 Whether the bail terms as set on October 25, 2021, remain fair and appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused had not demonstrated any change in circumstances since the original bail order of October 25, 2021. The application for revision was based solely on the accused's inability to meet the bail terms, which had already been considered by the court previously. The judge held that the bail terms remained fair and appropriate in the circumstances, and that no sufficient grounds had been presented to warrant a revision. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated September 21, 2022, for revision of bail terms is dismissed.
- The bail terms set on October 25, 2021, remain in force.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Prosecutor v Mubia (Criminal Case 69 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 15778 (KLR) (Crim) (30 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15778 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Case 69 of 2019
DO Ogembo, J
November 30, 2022
Between
Prosecutor
Republic
and
Francis Wanjohi Mubia
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused has filed a Notice of Motion application herein dated September 21, 2022. This application seeks for revisions of the terms of bail as ordered by the court on October 25, 2021. The main ground of the application is that the accused has been unable to raise the required security, and that he can only manage a bond of Kshs 500,000 with 1 surety or a cash bail of Kshs 100,000 as an alternative.
2. The prosecution has opposed this application on grounds that the terms as set by the court are fair and that in any case, there has not been any change in the circumstances of this case.
3. I have considered this application and the submissions made to it by the 2 sides. I have also considered the earlier findings on this matter of bail made on October 25, 2021. The said orders were made after a consideration of the circumstance of this case. In bringing this application, the applicant has not indicated to this court any change in the circumstances of this as to warrant a revision of the orders earlier made by this court. In my view, the terms aggrieved of remain fair. I therefore do not find any merit in the application of the applicant dated September 21, 2022. The same is dismissed. Orders accordingly
DO OgemboJudge30thNovember2022. Court:PARA 4. Read out in court in presence of the accused, Mr Farah, and Ms Gichuhi for state.30th November, 2022Before Hon D Ogembo JCourt assistant Kathomi/HadijaMr Farah for accused – presentMs Gichuhi for state – presentMs Gichuhi:PARA 5. This is for hearing. We are not ready to proceed. I have the investigating officer and Pathologist. However, an exhibit is not available. And the post mortem needed to be certified. We ask for a further date.Mr Farah:PARA 6. We also have tomorrow. We have not heard about the civilian witnesses. If it is to be adjourned. We request for 2 days.Gichuhi:It is not possible to proceed tomorrow. We really apologize.Court:PARA 7. Case is hereby adjourned on application of the prosecution. Hearing 15th 16th February 2023. Signed.Court: