[2016] KEHC 4163 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 4163 (KLR)

Section 379(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly prohibits the High Court from granting bail pending appeal to an appellant who has been sentenced to death. The court found that, despite the applicant's compliance with bail terms during trial and the respondent's concession, it lacked jurisdiction to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 4163 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Ben Muchera Mwebi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 29 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Appeal After Conviction and Sentence for Murder
Outcome
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Judges
AC Mrima
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Death Sentence, Criminal Procedure Code, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court Death Sentence Criminal Procedure Code Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Respondent

Ben Muchera Mwebi

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Appeal After Conviction and Sentence for Murder

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail pending appeal to a person convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
  2. 2 Whether Section 379(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the High Court from granting bail in such circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 379(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly prohibits the High Court from granting bail pending appeal to an appellant who has been sentenced to death. The court found that, despite the applicant's compliance with bail terms during trial and the respondent's concession, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain or grant the application. The cited authorities were distinguished on the basis that none involved applicants sentenced to death. The court emphasized its duty to uphold the clear statutory provision, noting that Section 379(4) had neither been amended nor declared unconstitutional. Accordingly, the application was struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

application struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 07/01/2016 is struck out for want of jurisdiction.