[2012] KEHC 472 (KLR)
The court held that under Article 49(h) of the Constitution, an accused person is entitled to bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The State did not provide any compelling reasons or objections to the grant of bail. The court emphasized that the most important consideration is whether the accused...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 472 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Christopher Kipkosgei Mutai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 29 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Bail Application, Constitutional Rights of Accused, Compelling Reasons for 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
Respondent
Christopher Kipkosgei Mutai
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Article 49(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the accused bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that under Article 49(h) of the Constitution, an accused person is entitled to bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The State did not provide any compelling reasons or objections to the grant of bail. The court emphasized that the most important consideration is whether the accused will attend trial. In the absence of any evidence or argument from the State suggesting that the accused would abscond or interfere with the trial process, the court found no basis to deny bail. Consequently, the application for bail was allowed, and the accused was granted bond with sureties as specified.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The accused is granted bond of Kshs. 600,000 with two sureties in a like sum.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kericho
Criminal Case 29 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………….PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
CHRISTOPHER KIPKOSGEI MUTAI…………...…………………ACCUSED
RULING
In a notice of Motion dated 17th October, 2012, the applicant/Accused herein seeks an order granting him bail. The application is pursuant to Article 23 and49(h) of the Constitution.
It is based on grounds on the face of it and it is supported by an affidavit sworn by his advocate Mr. Erick K. Korir where it is averred that he is entitled to protection by the Constitution. He has a parent who is disabled and has children to take care of.
The State did not oppose the application, Mr. Kiviihya for the State was of the view that bail was a Constitutional right.
According to Article 49(h) of the Constitutionan accused person can only be denied bail if there are compelling reasons. The most important reason a court has to consider is whether the person will turn up for trial.
The state having failed to notify the court of any reason why the accused should not be released on bond the application shall be allowed.
The accused is hence granted bond of Kshs. 600,000/= with two (2) sureties in a like sum.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered this 13th November, 2012
LILIAN N. MUTENDE
JUDGE
Counsel appearing
Mr. Kiviihya State Counsel for the Republic
Mr. E.K. Korir advocate for the accused
Koech – Court Clerk