[2013] KEHC 1070 (KLR)
The court held that while the applicant is constitutionally entitled to seek bail, the decision to grant or deny bail remains discretionary and must be determined by the specific facts and circumstances of the case. In this instance, the trial was already underway with two witnesses having testified, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1070 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Frankline Otieno Asili; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 37 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Application Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Right to Bail, Presumption of Innocence
- 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
Frankline Otieno Asili
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49 (i) (h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the seriousness of the charge and risk of flight justify denial of bail.
- 3 Whether the applicant's constitutional rights are violated by pre-trial detention.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while the applicant is constitutionally entitled to seek bail, the decision to grant or deny bail remains discretionary and must be determined by the specific facts and circumstances of the case. In this instance, the trial was already underway with two witnesses having testified, and the prosecution had reduced the number of witnesses to be called. Given the seriousness of the charge, the ongoing nature of the trial, and the need for expeditious conclusion, the court found it inappropriate to grant bail at this stage. The application for bail was therefore dismissed, and the court directed that the trial proceed to conclusion without further delay.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail is dismissed.
- The case is to be set down for further hearing and the prosecution to present all its witnesses on scheduled dates for expeditious conclusion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 37 OF 2012
REPUBLIC....................................................RESPONDENT
VERSUS
FRANKLINE OTIENO ASILI...…......................APPLICANT
RULING
Frankline Otieno Asili is facing trial for the murder of John Ngige Gitau. The particulars of the charge are that on the night of 28th and 29th August 2009 at Ruku Village in Kiambu County jointly with others not before court murdered John Ngige Gitau.
The accused now wishes to be released on bail pending the conclusion of his on-going trial. He cites Article 49 (i) h of the Constitution as entitling him to bail. He further cites his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty arguing that his detention before trial violates his right under Article 50 (2) (a) of the Constitution. In arguments in support of the application, Mr. Keengwe for the applicant urged the court to disregard the seriousness of the charge as the same was covered by Article 49 (i) h. He submitted that the applicant would attend his trial to completion and further that being a man of straw, he had no means of interfering with prosecution witnesses or fleeing the jurisdiction of the court.
The application is opposed by the State through the sworn affidavit of No. 64168 Sgt. Damaris Matiri and through arguments advanced at the hearing by Ms. Onunga the prosecution counsel. It is the State’s view that the applicant was likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court owing to the seriousness of the charge and the attendant sentence upon conviction. While admitting that the case against the accused is built on circumstantial evidence, prosecuting counsel urged the court to exercise discretion not to grant bail but to proceed with the trial to conclusion.
In considering this application I have carefully weighed the arguments for and against the application. I am guided by Article 49 (i) (h) of the Constitution which entitles the applicant to seek bail. I am also alive to the fact that an accused person can be granted bail at any stage of the proceedings.
However, it is to be observed that the court has discretion to grant or not to grant bail depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, I observe that the trial is on-going with 2 witnesses having already testified. The record also shows that although the prosecution has listed 20 witnesses in the committal bundle, prosecution counsel did inform the court on 18th September 2013 that the prosecution was going to call a total of 8 witnesses only.
In the circumstances, I am disinclined to admit the applicant to bail. I order that the case be set down for further hearing and that the prosecution presents all its witnesses on the scheduled dates for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
The application is dismissed.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Nairobi this 21st day of November, 2013
R. LAGAT - KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………….: Court clerk
……………………………: Applicant
……………………………: For the applicant
…………………………….: For the State/respondent