[2010] KEHC 31 (KLR)
Where charges against an accused are withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the accused is called to make a defence, the accused is discharged but not acquitted. The surety's liability does not automatically cease; however, there is no legal basis for the trial court to require the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 31 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Charles Githinji Muigua; Respondent: John Ngigi Wathiru; Applicant: Esther Wangui Wachira
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 312 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Judgment on Revision
- Outcome
- Orders for the arrest of the surety quashed and set aside.
- Judges
- MJA Emukule
- Legal Topics
- Surety Liability, Withdrawal of Charges, Bail and Bond, Criminal Procedure Code Interpretation
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Charles Githinji Muigua
Respondent
John Ngigi Wathiru
Respondent
Esther Wangui Wachira
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the legal status of a surety when charges against the accused are withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code?
- 2 Is the trial court justified in requiring a surety to attend court or face arrest after withdrawal of charges against the accused?
Ratio Decidendi
Where charges against an accused are withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the accused is called to make a defence, the accused is discharged but not acquitted. The surety's liability does not automatically cease; however, there is no legal basis for the trial court to require the surety to continue attending court or to issue arrest orders against the surety. The correct procedure is for the surety to apply for discharge and release of security under Section 128(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Any orders for the arrest of the surety in such circumstances are irregular and must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Orders for the arrest of the surety quashed and set aside.
Orders
- The orders of the trial magistrate for the arrest of the surety Esther Wangui Wachira issued on 26th March 2010 are quashed and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 312 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF CM CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2341 OF 2003
REPUBLIC vs CHARLES GITHINJI MUIGUA & JOHN NGIGI WATHIRU
AND
IN THE MATTER OF A SURETY-ESTHER WANGUI WACHIRA
JUDGMENT ON REVISION
The Applicant stood surety for the 1st accused against whom the prosecution withdrew charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code(Cap. 75, Laws of Kenya). The said Section says -
"87. In a trial before a subordinate court a public prosecutor may, with the consent of the court or on the instructions of the Attorney-General, at any time before judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person, and upon withdrawal -
(a) if it is made before the accused person is called upon to make his defence, he shall be discharged, but discharge of an accused person shall not operate as a bar to subsequent proceedings against him on account of the same facts;
(b) if it is made after the accused person is called upon to make his defence, he shall be acquitted."
There is no question that where charges are withdrawn against an accused person under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution may institute fresh charges against the accused at a later stage. The accused was not called to his defence, and could not be acquitted as would be the case under Section 87(B) above.
The question raised here is what happens to the surety of the person against whom charges have been withdrawn? Common sense would of course dictate that he has no more liability and he too should be discharged from his liability to ensure the accused attends court or else he may forfeit his security.
There is no basis for the trial court to require a surety to attend court once charges against the accused for whom he stood surety have been withdrawn.
There is however no provision that automatically releases the surety from his obligations under the surety ship to the accused whose charges have been withdrawn by the prosecution. The proper course of action is to apply under the provisions of Section 128(1)(mutatis mutandis), of the Criminal Procedure Code for the release and discharge of the surety, and release of her title deed.
In the meantime, the orders of the learned trial magistrate for the arrest of the surety Esther Wangui Wachira issued on 26th March 2010 are irregular, and hereby quashed and set aside.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 19th day of November, 2010
M. J. ANYARA EMUKULE
JUDGE