[2014] KEHC 382 (KLR)
The court found that both accused persons failed to provide a fixed place of abode or sufficient information regarding their residence or employment. The prosecution's concerns about their unknown backgrounds and lack of traceable addresses were substantiated by the investigation diary and affidavits. Given the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 382 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Dedan Mburu Njoroge; Defendant: Dickson Lewangu Lenane
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 84 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- bail denied
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Flight Risk, 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
Dedan Mburu Njoroge
Defendant
Dickson Lewangu Lenane
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons should be granted bail pending trial.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail to the accused persons.
- 3 Whether the accused are a flight risk due to lack of fixed abode.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both accused persons failed to provide a fixed place of abode or sufficient information regarding their residence or employment. The prosecution's concerns about their unknown backgrounds and lack of traceable addresses were substantiated by the investigation diary and affidavits. Given the seriousness of the offence and the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court determined that the risk of absconding was real and significant. Consequently, the court held that there were compelling reasons to deny bail, as the accused were considered flight risks and their release would jeopardize the administration of justice.
Court Disposition
bail denied
Orders
- The applications for bail by both accused persons are denied.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 84 OF 2014
LESIIT, J.
REPUBLIC………..…..……..…..........................………...PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS -
DEDAN MBURU NJOROGE………..….....…….…………1ST ACCUSED
DICKSON LEWANGU LENANE…………........………….2ND ACCUSED
RULING
The 1staccused person,DEDAN MBURU NJOROGEfiled a Notice of Motion application dated 6thNovember 2014.
The 1staccused seeks bail pending the hearing and determination of his case. In the alternative heasks the court to make any other order it deems fit in the circumstances.
The application is premised on similar grounds namely:
That the Applicant was arrested on 5th August, 2014.
That the Applicant is in remand pending the hearing and determination of the matter herein.
That the offence is bailable under the Constitution of Kenya.
That the Application is a law abiding Kenyan Citizen.
That the Applicant is ready and willing to abide by any bail/bond terms and conditions that the Court may grant.
That the Applicant is not a flight risk.
That there are no compelling reasons why the Applicant should not be enjoying his liberty pending the hearing and determination of this Criminal trial.
That the Applicant will not in any way interfere with the investigations or the prosecution of this trial if released on bond or bail as investigations are complete.
That it is only fair and just for the Applicant to be admitted to reasonable bail and/or bond on reasonable terms.
The 1staccused has sworn an affidavit in support of his respective application which I have considered.
The second accused did not file a formal application, he merely rode on the application by the 1st accused. Mr. Chege for him urged that the 2nd accused deserves bail as he is a Kenyan, was unlikely to abscond and that there are no compelling reasons to decline him bail.
The State has filed a replying affidavit which is sworn by the Investigating Officer PC Stephen Oketch dated 16th December 2014. In that affidavit the officer deposes that the1staccused, has not shown his fixed place of abode. He has not given his physical or post office box. He is a flight risk and may not be traced.
The 1staccused said he was a casual labourer in a kiosk which is not given. The Investigating Officer deposes that the 1st accused is also a flight risk that he may not be traced if released and may interfere with witnesses and therefore he should be declined bail.
I have considered the submissions by Mr. Muoki and Mr. Chege for the 1st and 2nd accused and Mr. Konga for the State.
It is now well settled that accused persons should be granted bail unless there are compelling reasons not to. The primary consideration being whether the accused is likely to attend at his trial, whether he is a flight risk and whether he is likely to interfere with witnesses.
The prosecution has raised the issue of the accused not showing their true place of abode where they could be found in case they jumped bail.
In this case the prosecution has not adduced any evidence that sheds any right as to the accused antecedents or character. However, from the investigation diary it is shown that the 1st accused claims to be a watchman at some unknown place while the 2nd accused is a freelance self-employed man with no known fixed place of operating business.
The accused persons face a very serious offence. The sentence for the offence is equally serious. In 1st accused affidavit he has not stated his place of abode. All he states is he is from a humble background. The 2nd accused swore no affidavit and his residence is unknown.
Having considered the application for bail by both accused, I find them unknown persons and consequently the temptations to abscond are very real. I find them a flight risk and consequently deny them both bail.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RDDAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE.