[2013] KEHC 5584 (KLR)
The court found that, although the Constitution guarantees the right to bail, this right is not absolute and may be limited where compelling reasons exist. The likelihood of interference with prosecution witnesses, particularly the applicant's wife who is a crucial witness, was established through affidavits and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5584 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Dickson Mukasa Simiyu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2013
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 72 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- application for bail dismissed
- Judges
- AW Macharia
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference, Murder Charge
- Source Language
- english
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
Dickson Mukasa Simiyu
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the applicant bail, specifically the likelihood of interference with prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the Constitution guarantees the right to bail, this right is not absolute and may be limited where compelling reasons exist. The likelihood of interference with prosecution witnesses, particularly the applicant's wife who is a crucial witness, was established through affidavits and the pre-bail report. The court determined that releasing the applicant on bail would create a scenario where the key witness may be unwilling or unable to testify, thus compromising the integrity of the trial. Therefore, the application for bail was dismissed to preserve the administration of justice.
Court Disposition
application for bail dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail/bond by the applicant is dismissed.
- Bail/bond is denied until such a time that circumstances may change.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 72 OF 2012
REPUBLIC ….............................................................................. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DICKSON MUKASA SIMIYU ….......................................................... ACCUSED
RULING
Before me for determination is Notice of Motion dated 16/12/2012 in which the Applicant, who I the accused prays that he be released on bond/bail on reasonable conditions. The same is based on grounds that:-
1. The Applicant has been charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. Though under the Criminal Procedure Code the applicant cannot be released on bail/bond, under the Constitution of Kenya 2010 which is the supreme law all accused persons are entitled to be released on bail pending the trial unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
3. The Applicant maintains his innocence and this innocence is guaranteed by Article 50 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
4. The state dropped charges against the applicant's wife Anne Ajiambo and opted to pursue the Applicant alone.
It is further supported by the affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 10th December, 2012. The gist of the supporting affidavit is that the Applicant is willing to abide with any conditions set by the court and that he undertakes not to interfere with any prosecution witnesses.
The State has opposed the application vide a Replying Affidavit sworn by number 69598 police officer attached to Kesses Police Post under Kiambaa Police Station. He depones that if the Applicant is released on bail/bond, he is likely to interfere with witnesses. In particular he depones that, the Applicant is alleged to have murdered a daughter of one Ann Ajambo, the latter being his wife. He states that at the time the Applicant married Anne Ajambo, she had already given birth to the deceased, that Anne Ajambo is one of the prosecution witnesses who may not come to court to testify if the Applicant is released on bond.
Before the State could reply to the application, court called for a pre-bail report. The same was filed in court on 19/3/2013. It is signed by one Beatrice Kiptogoch a Probation Officer and is dated the 19th March, 2013.
The said report indicates that, since the alleged murder, the mother of the deceased one, (here named Ann Adhiambo) has since separated with the Applicant. In conflicting him of event, the same report indicates that the Applicant's family members including his wife Ann Adhiambo are willing to receive him back home and offer him emotional and psychological support. This statements begs more questions than answers in the sense that, it is not clear how the separated wife will offer the Applicant the emotional and psychological support. The pointer is that there is an undoubted likelihood of the two (Applicant and Ann Adhiambo) reuniting upon granting of bail to the Applicant.
Such a scenario would complicate the likelihood of the said Ann Adhiambo (Ajambo) conceding to testify against her husband.
I note from paragraph five (5) of the Replying Affidavit that the Respondent referred to a statement of the Applicant's wife which it failed to attach. I have no doubt though, that the Applicant's wife recorded a statement and she therefore remains a crucial prosecution witness. He evidence would be no doubt compromised if the Applicant is released on bail to continue cohabiting with her.
Under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution an accused person is entitled to bail unless there are compelling reasons to warrant court not to grant him bail.
Although there are no standard principle set to define what the compelling reasons are, I would consider the likelihood of interference with witnesses as one cardinal factor to be considered.
In this respect, I find that, from the foregoing, there is a likelihood of the Applicant interfering with a crucial prosecution witness if he is released on bond.
Accordingly, I decline to grant him bail/bond until such a time that circumstances may change. Accordingly, I dismiss the application.
DATED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 26th day of June, 2013.
G. W. NGENYE – MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ngigi holding brief for C. F. Otieno for the Accused
Wainaina for the State