[2014] KEHC 494 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had not raised any new issues or grounds that had not already been considered in the initial application for bail. The primary reason for denying bail remained the risk of intimidation of civilian prosecution witnesses, who had not yet testified. The court maintained that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 494 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: No.58556 Sgt. Albert Njiru; Applicant: No.91232 P.C. Elijah Kimoi; Applicant: No.85385 Job James Weru; Applicant: No.77499 P.C. Daniel Pakar Matunge; Applicant: No.86231 P.C. Stephen Ariga; Applicant: No.83103 P.C. Kennedy Ominde; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 79 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Denial
- Outcome
- applications for review of bail denial rejected
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Witness Intimidation, Pretrial Detention
- 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
No.58556 Sgt. Albert Njiru
Applicant
No.91232 P.C. Elijah Kimoi
Applicant
No.85385 Job James Weru
Applicant
No.77499 P.C. Daniel Pakar Matunge
Applicant
No.86231 P.C. Stephen Ariga
Applicant
No.83103 P.C. Kennedy Ominde
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Denial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have presented new grounds to warrant a review of the earlier decision denying them bail.
- 2 Whether the continued detention of the applicants is justified to safeguard the testimony of civilian prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had not raised any new issues or grounds that had not already been considered in the initial application for bail. The primary reason for denying bail remained the risk of intimidation of civilian prosecution witnesses, who had not yet testified. The court maintained that the interests of justice would best be served by ensuring the safety and availability of these witnesses and by fast-tracking the trial to conclusion. Accordingly, the applications for review were rejected.
Court Disposition
applications for review of bail denial rejected
Orders
- The respective applications for review are rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 79 OF 2012
REPUBLIC.................................................................. RESPONDENT
VERSUS
1. NO.58556 SGT. ALBERT NJIRU.............................1ST APPLICANT
2. NO.91232 P.C. ELIJAH KIMOI...............................2ND APPLICANT
3. NO.85385 JOB JAMES WERU...............................3RD APPLICANT
4. NO.77499 P.C. DANIEL PAKAR MATUNGE.............4TH APPLICANT
5. NO.86231 P.C. STEPHEN ARIGA............................5TH APPLICANT
6. NO.83103 P.C. KENNEDY OMINDE…..................6TH APPLICANT
R U L I N G
The six applications before me seek a review of the ruling of this court delivered on 13th August 2013. In the ruling, I disallowed the applications for bail in respect of all the accused in this case for the reason that the civilian witnesses were likely to be intimidated. I was persuaded, taking all factors into consideration, that the interests of justice would be served in not allowing the application. In the present application, the accused have, through the averments in their supporting affidavits and submissions of their respective counsel urged the court to review the earlier ruling. They have undertaken not to interfere with witnesses and to turn up in court for their trial. The State on the other hand has opposed these review applications on the ground that not all the civilian prosecution witnesses have testified and that they would experience real fear if the applicants were released.
Having considered all the respective affidavits and submissions, I am of the view that the applications have not raised any new issues for consideration by the court. All the issues raised were canvassed and considered at length in the first application. As indicated above, the primary reason that the court denied bail was to safeguard the testimony of the civilian prosecution witnesses whom the court was persuaded were likely to be intimidated. Those witnesses are yet to testify. The court was also of the considered view that the ends of justice in this case would be served by fast tracking the trial to conclusion. I am still so persuaded.
The respective applications for review are thus rejected.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Nairobi this 20thday of March, 2014
R. LAGAT - KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………..: Court clerk
……………………. : 1st Applicant
……………………..: 2nd Applicant
……………………..: 3rd Applicant
……………………...: 4th Applicant
……………………..: 5th Applicant
……………………..: 6th Applicant
……………………..: For the 1st accused/applicant
……………………..: For the 2nd accused/applicant
For the 3rd accused/applicant
……………………..: For the 4th accused/applicant
……………………..: For the 5th accused/applicant
……………………..: For the 6th accused/applicant
…………………….: For the State/respondent