[2014] KEHC 6345 (KLR)
The court found that while the charge of murder is serious and the sentence severe, the right to bail is constitutionally protected unless compelling reasons are shown. The prosecution's allegation that the accused might interfere with witnesses was not supported by concrete evidence, only a bare assertion based on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6345 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic of Kenya; Defendant: Charles Ndambuki Nthiwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 46 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- bail granted with conditions
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Interference With Witnesses, Right to Bail
- 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 of Kenya
Applicant
Charles Ndambuki Nthiwa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial despite the seriousness of the charge.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has provided compelling reasons to deny bail, specifically the risk of interference with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the charge of murder is serious and the sentence severe, the right to bail is constitutionally protected unless compelling reasons are shown. The prosecution's allegation that the accused might interfere with witnesses was not supported by concrete evidence, only a bare assertion based on residence proximity. The court held that mere proximity to witnesses does not amount to a compelling reason to deny bail. The accused's settled address, family ties, and undertaking to attend court further supported the grant of bail. The court therefore exercised its discretion in favour of the accused, imposing conditions to safeguard the integrity of the trial process.
Court Disposition
bail granted with conditions
Orders
- The accused shall not directly or indirectly contact prosecution witnesses.
- If the accused flouts this order, the Investigation Officer may report to the court for cancellation of bail.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
No. 192/2014
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 46 OF 2013
REPUBLIC ….. …………………………………PROSECUTION
VERSUS
CHARLES NDAMBUKI NTHIWA…………………....ACCUSED
R U L I N G
The applicant who is charged with Murder has applied for bail pending trial. He was arraigned in court on the 2nd October, 2013. He has been in remand awaiting trial for a duration of four (4) months.
In seeking the prayer sought, the Applicant advanced the ground that there are no compelling reasons to deter him from being released on bail and that he is languishing in the cells. In an affidavit in support of the application he depones that he is ready and willing to abide with the terms and conditions to be imposed by the court and vows to attend court whenever required.
In response to the application the State relied on a Replying Affidavit sworn by No. 80950 P.C. Peter Yegon. He depones that the accused resides within Kinyaata Location in Yatta District and is a resident of the area within which the witnesses reside. He was apprehensive that the accused could interfere with the witnesses which would be prejudicial to the prosecution’s case. He brought the courts attention the fact of the violence and brutality meted out on the deceased. His release on bail according to the officer would pose a security threat to the witnesses.
Relevant factors I must take into account when considering this application are as follows:-
The nature of the charge
The strength of the prosecution’s case
Whether the accused has a settled address.
The likelihood of the accused interfering with police witnesses.
Whether the accused will turn up for trial.
It is trite law that the charge the accused faces is bailable, the right to bail is however not absolute such that the court must be cautious when it comes to exercising its discretion. The charge itself is serious because the sentence to be meted out is severe.
The accused is innocent until proven guilty therefore the strength of the prosecution’s case which is yet to be demonstrated may not be worth considering. The accused has a settled address because the prosecution has alluded to the fact that he is a resident of the place inhabited by witnesses who will testify. This fact is confirmed by averments of the applicant that he has a family, children in high school and public universities and an ailing mother aged 90 years old.
The accused has promised to attend court whenever required. This is a primary consideration the court should bear in mind. The prosecution did not suggest that he was of flight risk. However, the prosecution has expressed fear that the accused is likely to interfere with witnesses.
Does this ground justify the court to exercise its discretion to deprive the accused of his freedom?
The prosecution had a duty of adducing very compelling evidence to support such a contention. The affidavit deposed simply states that the accused resides in the same location with the witnesses. Hence the likelihood of interference with them. A perusal of the affidavit reveals a bare allegation not supported by any evidence. The prosecution did not justify why the court should exercise the discretion to deprive the accused of the liberty.
In my view no compelling evidence was adduced in support of the contention. In the circumstances, I will grant bail as prayed but impose conditions as follows ;-
To ensure the interest of justice is met, the accused shall not directly or indirectly contact prosecution witnesses.
In case he flouts the order, the Investigation Officer shall be at liberty to report to this court which will result into his bail being cancelled.
The accused shall be released on bond of three (3) million shillings with a surety in a similar sum.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MACHAKOS this 31ST day of JANUARY, 2014
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE