[2011] KEHC 2286 (KLR)
The court found that the accused person is entitled to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution unless compelling reasons are shown. While the State raised concerns about the seriousness of the offence and the risk of absconding, it failed to demonstrate specific ways in which the accused would interfere with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2286 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Charles Ngei Mwendwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 62 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application allowed; bail granted with conditions
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Murder Charge, Compelling Reasons, 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
Applicant
Charles Ngei Mwendwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused person is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail to the accused person charged with murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused person is entitled to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution unless compelling reasons are shown. While the State raised concerns about the seriousness of the offence and the risk of absconding, it failed to demonstrate specific ways in which the accused would interfere with the remaining witnesses or pose a real risk of absconding. The majority of prosecution witnesses had already testified, and the accused's personal circumstances, including his family responsibilities, were considered. The court was not persuaded that compelling reasons existed to deny bail and therefore exercised its discretion in favour of granting bail, subject to stringent...
Court Disposition
application allowed; bail granted with conditions
Orders
- The accused is granted a personal bond of KShs.1,500,000 with two sureties of like amount, recognizances to be verified by the Deputy Registrar.
- The accused shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the nearest Police Station every Tuesday and attend court as directed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
HCCR.C.NO.62 OF 2008
REPUBLIC.............................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHARLES NGEI MWENDWA...............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
(1)On the 23rd February, 2011 Charles Ngei Mwendwa (“the Accused Person/ Appellant”) took out a Chamber Summons under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution seeking an order that he be released on bond/bail pending the hearing and determination of this case. He is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 and 204 of the Penal Code as stated in an information filed on the 15th July, 2008.
The application is supported by the Accused Person’s own affidavit sworn on the 16th February, 2011 in which he deponed that he is a peasant farmer from Nzeluni Sub-location within Kitui County and promises to attend court and be available at the trial as the court requires.
(2)In opposition to the application, Cpl. Alex Ogutu made a replying affidavit on the 22nd March, 2011. After summarizing the events before the Accused Person was arrested and charged, the deponent goes on to state that in view of the sentence facing the Accused Person if convicted, the temptation to abscond if released on bail is real. He also says that the Accused Person would not be safe at home if released considering that he had killed his wife and secretly buried her about two meters away from his house where the grave was discovered by members of the public including the relatives of the deceased.
(3)Mrs. J. M. Mutua, learned counsel for the Accused Person, noted in her submission that most of the prosecution witnesses have already given their evidence and that only the formal witnesses remain to testify. She argued that the Accused Person had been living well in society before he was charged and that it would be in the interests of justice for him to be released so that he could return to his young children and the other members of his family.
(4)In opposing the application, Mrs. Christine Gakobo, learned State Counsel, contended that the sentence that would be imposed on the Accused Person if convicted is enough incentive for him to abscond. She said that although four witnesses for the prosecution have already testified, there are two civilian witnesses still to testify and there is fear that the Accused Person may come into contact with them, thereby compromising their willingness to give evidence, citing the decision in Republic –vs- Joseph Wambua Mutinga and three Others (Nairobi HC. Criminal Case No.23 of 2008).
(5)I have considered the application in light of the submissions of both learned counsel and the cases the court has been referred to including the decision of Ibrahim, J inRepublic –vs- Danson Ngunya and Another (Mombasa H.C. Criminal Case No.26 of 2008).
In paragraph 11 of the Replying Affidavit, Cpl. Ogutu States:
“THAT considering the serious nature of the offence, the sentence provided for in law and the likelihood of the applicant absconding, I urge this Honourable Court to find that there are compelling reasons as to why the applicant should not be released on bail and exercise its discretion and not grant bail in favour of the applicant”.
I have noted that the Accused Person is a peasant farmer who is a Kenyan citizen and that he wishes to be released on bail so that he may return home and take care of his young children. I have also taken into consideration that the majority of the prosecution witnesses have testified. The State has not demonstrated in which manner the Accused person is likely to compromise the remaining prosecution witnesses. I am therefore not persuaded that there are any compelling reasons to warrant the denial of bail to the Accused person. I will accordingly, allow the application.
(6)Allowing the Application, even as it fulfills the terms of the Constitution, must not compromise the public interest and the rights of the complainant and the family of the deceased. I therefore make the following orders:
(i)The Accused person is granted a personal bond of the value of KShs.1,500,000/- (One million, Five Hundred Thousand) together with two (2) sureties each of like amount, the sureties each to submit recognizances to be verified by the Deputy Registrar of this court.
(ii)The Accused Person shall report to the Officer-in-Charge (OCS) of the nearest Police Station to the home of the Accused Person to be (determined by the Deputy Registrar) every Tuesday in each week of every calendar month and shall also attend court on such dates and times as the court directs.
(iii)The Accused person shall inform the OCS of his intention to travel outside the jurisdiction of the OCS before he travel. He shall also provide the OCS will all relevant information of his mode of travel, his next and final destination and residence and the duration of stay outside the jurisdiction of the OCS.
(iv)In the event that the Accused Person wishes to travel outside Kenya for any reason whatsoever, he shall first seek and obtain an order of the High Court.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 23rd day of May, 2011.
P. Kihara Kariuki
Judge