[2014] KEHC 2093 (KLR)
The court found that the circumstances which previously justified denial of bail—namely, the risk of interference with vulnerable prosecution witnesses—no longer exist, as those witnesses have now testified and are no longer in a vulnerable position. The court also determined that the existence of a related capital...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2093 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dancun Livingstone Kimanthi; Applicant: Winnie Wairimu Kariuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 50 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Review Application
- Outcome
- bail_granted_with_conditions
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference, Flight Risk
- 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
Dancun Livingstone Kimanthi
Applicant
Winnie Wairimu Kariuki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants should be granted bail after previous denials based on risk of witness interference and absconding.
- 2 Whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a review of the earlier bail denial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the circumstances which previously justified denial of bail—namely, the risk of interference with vulnerable prosecution witnesses—no longer exist, as those witnesses have now testified and are no longer in a vulnerable position. The court also determined that the existence of a related capital robbery charge does not, in itself, establish that the applicants are serial offenders, since both charges arise from the same incident. The court concluded that there are no longer compelling reasons to deny bail and that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail with appropriate conditions to mitigate any residual risks.
Court Disposition
bail_granted_with_conditions
Orders
- Each applicant to pay cash bail of Kshs. 1,000,000 with one surety of similar amount or execute a personal bond of Kshs. 1,000,000 with two sureties of similar amount.
- Each applicant to deposit his/her passport with the court and not leave the jurisdiction without court order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO.50 OF 2012
REPUBLIC.................................................................RESPONDENT
VERSUS
DANCUN LIVINGSTONE KIMANTHI………........1ST APPLICANT
WINNIE WAIRIMU KARIUKI…………………...2ND APPLICANT
RULING
The application before me seeks a review of the court’s earlier ruling denying the applicants bail. Three previous applications filed by the applicants were rejected for two reasons. In the first ruling delivered on 27th November, 2013, the court (differently constituted) found that the release of the applicants was likely to cause fear to the witnesses who were the 1st accused’s fellow students at United States International University (U.S.I.U).
In the subsequent applications argued before me, the court found vide a ruling delivered on 22nd August 2013 that the applicants were likely to interfere with prosecution witnesses who were deemed to be in a vulnerable position being former colleagues of the 1st applicant. It also found that the applicants were likely to abscond trial given that they faced two capital charges.
The applicants filed yet another application which was dismissed in a ruling dated 11th March 2014 for reason that there were no changed circumstances to warrant a review of the court’s earlier ruling. In denying bail however the court directed that the applicants could renew their application once the identified vulnerable witnesses had testified.
In the present application, both accused have through their counsel argued that the vulnerable witnesses have since testified. They further submit that the capital robbery charge faced by the accused arose out of the same incident giving rise to the present murder trial before this court. The State has opposed the application on the ground that the likelihood of the accused absconding trial was high given the likelihood of conviction in the two capital offences.
I have considered the application. I am satisfied that there is no compelling reason to warrant denial of bail at this stage. As the record shows, the key prosecution witnesses who were earlier deemed to be vulnerable have since testified. Further, and from their testimony they are no longer students of U.S.I.U.where the 1st applicant may or may not resume studies if released. Secondly, it has been demonstrated to me that the accused are not necessarily serial offenders as the capital robbery charge in the lower court arose out of the same incident as the murder case before this court.
In the premises I allow the respective applications on the condition that each applicant shall:-
Pay cash bail of One Million Shillings (Kshs.1Million) with one surety of similar amount or in the alternative execute a personal bond of KShs.1Million with 2 sureties of similar amount.
Shall deposit his/her passport with the court and not leave the jurisdiction of this court without an order of the court.
Not communicate with or in any manner whatsoever interfere with any of the prosecution witnesses.
Attend monthly mention before the Deputy Registrar of the court.
The first such mention shall be given during the next hearing date which will be on 19th/20th November, 2014
Ruling delivered, dated and signedat Nairobi this29thday ofOctober, 2014
R. LAGAT - KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………….: Court clerk
…………………………….: 1st Applicant
…………………………….: 2nd Applicant
…………………………….: For the 1st Applicant
…………………………….: For the 2nd Applicant
……………………...……..: For the State/respondent