Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Meru

Republic v Francis Gitonga [2017] KEHC 6990 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that while the accused is charged with a serious offence (murder), the only compelling reason advanced by the prosecution for opposing bail was that the accused allegedly went underground after the offence. The accused's uncle accounted for his whereabouts from September 2007 to May 2016, but there was no satisfactory explanation for the period immediately after the offence. The court concluded that the accused's trustworthiness is questionable due to this unexplained absence. However, the court determined that the accused could be released on bond with stringent conditions to ensure attendance and prevent interference with witnesses or the trial process. The court balanced the constitutional right to bail with the need to secure the accused's attendance and the interests of justice, ultimately granting bail with conditions.

Court disposition

Bail granted with conditions.

Orders

  • The accused may be released on bond of Kshs. 1,000,000 plus one surety of similar amount to be examined for suitability by the Deputy Registrar.
  • The accused's case shall be mentioned by the Deputy Registrar fortnightly to ensure compliance with bond terms.
  • The accused shall not interfere with witnesses or the due process of the trial.

02

Material facts

Parties

Republic

Respondent Counsel: Mr Mungai

Francis Gitonga

Applicant Counsel: Mr Mutuma J

Amounts and remedies

  • Bond Amount: KES 1,000,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application Pending Trial

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The accused is entitled to the constitutional right to bail pending trial and the presumption of innocence. He is a sickly man, sole breadwinner, and requires constant medical attention. His family depends on him for livelihood. The accused was employed by his uncle during the period in question and was not aware he was wanted. Other suspects charged with the same offence were acquitted. The accused claims he is being witch hunted and was arrested on uninvestigated allegations.
Respondent
The prosecution opposes bail on grounds that the accused went underground after committing the offence and only resurfaced years later. There is a risk he may abscond if released. The seriousness of the offence and the strength of evidence from two witnesses implicating the accused are cited. The deceased's father also opposes bail, arguing justice requires the accused remain in custody until trial.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

    All offences are bailable unless there are compelling reasons to deny bail.

  2. 02

    Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code

    The court may deny bail considering the seriousness of the offence, character and antecedents of the accused, and risk of absconding.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that while the accused is charged with a serious offence (murder), the only compelling reason advanced by the prosecution for opposing bail was that the accused allegedly went underground after the offence. The accused's uncle accounted for his whereabouts from September 2007 to May 2016, but there was no satisfactory explanation for the period immediately after the offence. The court concluded that the accused's trustworthiness is questionable due to this unexplained absence. However, the court determined that the accused could be released on bond with stringent conditions to ensure attendance and prevent interference with witnesses or the trial process. The court balanced the constitutional right to bail with the need to secure the accused's attendance and the interests of justice, ultimately granting bail with conditions.

Obiter and limits

  • The seriousness of the offence alone does not automatically constitute a compelling reason to deny bail.
  • The accused's family and community ties, as well as positive pre-bail report, support consideration for bail.
  • The court will impose strict bond terms to mitigate the risk of absconding.

Court disposition

Bail granted with conditions.

  • The accused may be released on bond of Kshs. 1,000,000 plus one surety of similar amount to be examined for suitability by the Deputy Registrar.
  • The accused's case shall be mentioned by the Deputy Registrar fortnightly to ensure compliance with bond terms.
  • The accused shall not interfere with witnesses or the due process of the trial.

Source and reliance status

High Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court

Judgment

[2017] KEHC 6990 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT AT MERU

CRIMINAL CASE NO.71 OF 2016

REPUBLIC .................................PROSECUTOR

VS

FRANCIS GITONGA.........................ACCUSED

RULING

The accused Francis Gitonga was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.

Particulars of the offence was that Francis Gitonga on the 31st day of July 2007 at Kiamurenga village, Lakathi Division Igembe South / County within Meru County murdered George Kamuindi M’Mpara. The accused was first arraigned in court on 19th October 2016 and information of the offence read over to him on 9th November 2016 whence he pleaded not guilty.

By an application dated 23rd day of November 2016 the accused persons counsel Mr Mutuma applied-

That accused person be admitted to bond on bail pending trial. The application was supported by grounds on the face of application among which were that accused is entitled to constitutional fundamental right to bond or bail pending trial;

That accused is entitled to the inviolable fundamental right of presumption of innocence;

That applicant is a sickly man working for gain and sole bread winner and his health requires constant medical attention and also his family is denied source of livelihood and subsistence.

The application was also supported by accused persons over affidavit sworn on 23rd day of November 2016.

The affidavit of Jotham Njue Mwana sworn on 23. 1.2017 and further affidavit of accused sworn on even date also supported applications.

In his submissions in court Mr. Mutuma for the accused argued that accused was in employment of his uncle Njue on date offence was committed. He also claimed that other accused persons had been charged with same offence tried and acquitted and therefore the accused should not have been charged in the first place.

Mr Mutuma Advocate claimed that accused was arrested on allegations that had not been investigated. Mr Namita Counsel for the state place reliance on affidavit of Njue the uncle to the accused who averred that sometimes in September 2007 he employed accused at Chuka to care for his livestock at Ndagari village Karuga Location. That in 2011 to May 2016 he transferred him to Magundu village in Meru County to continue looking after his cattle and in May 2016 he left employment. He said that at no time between 2007 to 2016 did anyone inform him that accused was wanted.

Mr Namits said accused had gone underground after committing offence and if granted bond is likely to run away from justice of the court.

Mr Mutuma Advocate said accused persons family who have fixed abode were not informed he was wanted.

This court called for Prebail Report and upon interviewing a total of 9 people the probation officer Alice Mugambi concluded and recommended that accused maybe considered for release on bond. According to probation office she established from those interviewed including Chief of Kindain Location one Mr Josphat Murugi that accused persons past conduct was good and that he legitimately occupied himself with food crop farming for his livelihood and that of his young family and that his immediate relatives are welcome to the idea of his possible release on bond.

The father of the deceased strongly opposed accused persons release on bond. He stated that for justice to prevail, accused should remain in custody until the case is heard and determined.

Article 49(1) (h) of the constitution of Kenya 2010 that all offences are bailable except where it is proved that there are compelling reasons that would make the court not to grant bond.

Section 123 A of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for some circumstances that would make court deny bond, but which are subject to Article 49(1) (h). These include:-

a. The nature or seriousness of the offence.

b. The character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused person;

c. The defendants reasoned in respect of the fulfilment of obligations under previous grants of bail and

d. The strength of evidence of his having committed the offence.

In this matter the only reason the prosecution opposed accused persons release on bond is because since offence was committed on 31st day of July 2007 he went underground. His uncle John Njue Imwara accounts for him between September 2007 to May 2016 when he was employed. Accused person in his affidavit where he was from 31st July 2007 until his uncle employed him in September 2007. He was only arrested after he returned to Meru in 2016. The accused person annexed to his affidavit copies of witness statements which from their reading by this court, accused person is implicated by 2 witnesses who witnessed the offence take place. The accused has claimed he is witch hunted because suspects charged earlier with same offence were acquitted. I have not seen the proceedings in previous charge to know reason for acquittal in the other charge but in this matter. The statements of Sabera Muthoni John – annexure FG2 and Joshua M’Thorieri M’Intubiri strongly implicates the accused person. This is a murder charge and therefore quite a serious offence and in essence of an explanation to the satisfaction of the court as to the whereabouts of accused person between 31st July 2007 to September 2007 – this court will conclude he went missing underground after committing this offence and therefore conclude that his trust worthiness is questionable. This court will moreover grant bond and attach conditions that will ensure that accused person attends court as and when required.

He may be released on bond of Kshs. 1,000,000/- plus one surety of similar amount to be examined for suitability by the Deputy Registrar.

The accused person will have his case mentioned by the DR fortnightly to ensure compliance with bond terms which will include ensuring he doesn’t in anyway interfere with witnesses or the due process of the trial.

Order accordingly

A.Ong’injo Judge

13. 3.2017

Before Adwera –Ong’injo Judge

Penina C/A

Mr Mungai for State

Mr Mutuma J Advocate for accused

Court

Ruling delivered dated and signed in court.

A.Ong’injo Judge

13. 3.2017

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Article 49(1)(h)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Code Section 123A

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Section 203

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Section 204

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.