[2021] KEHC 7079 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7079 (KLR)

The court found that, although the accused are presumed innocent and the evidence of flight risk was not clear, there were compelling reasons to deny bail. These included the unresolved risk of violence against the accused, the absence of a witness protection programme, the uncertainty of the accused's proposed relocation, and the credible fears of the victim's family, who are potential witnesses and have reported threats to the police. The court concluded that these factors, taken together, constituted compelling reasons under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution to refuse bail at this stage.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 7079 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Defendant: David Mwangi Gitau; Defendant: Daniel Ndung’u Gitau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Murang'a
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 May 2021
Case Number
Criminal Case E001 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Outcome
bail refused; application dismissed
Judges
K Kimondo
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Presumption of Innocence, Victims Rights
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail Pending Trial Compelling Reasons Presumption of Innocence Victims Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

David Mwangi Gitau

Defendant

Daniel Ndung’u Gitau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused persons should be granted bail pending trial.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the safety of the accused and the risk of interference with witnesses justify denial of bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the accused are presumed innocent and the evidence of flight risk was not clear, there were compelling reasons to deny bail. These included the unresolved risk of violence against the accused, the absence of a witness protection programme, the uncertainty of the accused's proposed relocation, and the credible fears of the victim's family, who are potential witnesses and have reported threats to the police. The court concluded that these factors, taken together, constituted compelling reasons under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution to refuse bail at this stage.

Court Disposition

bail refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Bail is refused for both accused persons.
  • Deputy Registrar to allocate a hearing date on priority for the case.