[2020] KEHC 674 (KLR)
The court found that there were no compelling reasons to deny the accused bail pending trial. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution did not present any evidence or argument to suggest that the accused posed a flight risk, would interfere with witnesses, or otherwise undermine the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 674 (KLR)
- Parties
- Defendant: Fredrick Nducu Kamau; Applicant: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 43 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
- Outcome
- bail_granted_with_conditions
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, 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
Fredrick Nducu Kamau
Defendant
Republic
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the accused bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were no compelling reasons to deny the accused bail pending trial. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution did not present any evidence or argument to suggest that the accused posed a flight risk, would interfere with witnesses, or otherwise undermine the administration of justice if released on bail. The court emphasized that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's attendance at trial, not to punish or detain based on the seriousness of the charge alone. Accordingly, the accused was granted bail with conditions to mitigate any potential risks, including restrictions on residence and contact with witnesses.
Court Disposition
bail_granted_with_conditions
Orders
- The accused shall be released pending trial on bond of KSh. 500,000 plus two sureties of similar amount.
- Alternatively, the accused may be released upon payment of cash bail of KSh. 500,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO 43 OF 2020
REPUBLIC.........................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
FREDRICK NDUCU KAMAU................................................................ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. Fredrick Nducu Kamau is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and is now awaiting trial.
2. The Accused is a 28-year-old man. Prior to being charged with the present offence he was working with the Kenya Defence Forcesfor four years.
3. The state does not oppose the application for bail save that the state requests that the Accused do reside outside Githunguri area pending his trial.
4. Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution provides that any person charged with a criminal offence has a right to be released on bail pending trial unless there are compelling reasons for the court to decline to grant bail. What is a compelling reason was considered in the case Simindei Naurori and Another -v- Republic (2016) e KLR thus:
“The Constitution does not define what constitutes “compelling reasons’’. However, courts have rendered decisions that articulate what constitutes compelling reasons and include the following: the nature of the charge, the seriousness of the punishment, the strength of the prosecution case, the character and antecedents of the accused, the failure of the accused to honour bail terms previously granted, the likelihood that the Accused will fail to attend court during trial, the likelihood of interfering with witnesses, the need to protect the victim of crime and the accused person, the relationship between the accused and potential witnesses, the age of the accused, the flight risk, whether the accused person is gainfully employed, public order, peace and security imperatives. (See ALHAJI MUJAHID DUKUBO-ASARIN Vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA S.C. 20A/2006).
It is useful to refer to the case Republic v Fredrick OleLeliman & 4 others [2016]eKLRwhich the learned judge had cited to her in the case Ahmed MohammedOmar & 6 Others [2010] eKLR, where Ochieng, J. relied on the following quotation from the above case of FarrissC. J in Rex Vs. Hawken (1944) 2 DLR 116:
"The question of bail is sometimes misunderstood. When a man is accused he is nevertheless still presumed to be innocent and the object of keeping him in custody prior to trial is not on the theory that he is guilty but on the necessity of having him available for trial. It is proper that bail should be granted when the Judge is satisfied that the bail will ensure the accused appearing at his trial.”
5. There are no compelling reasons to deny the Accused bail pending trial because he is to presumed as innocent until conviction. Accordingly, I grant the following orders:
(a) The Accused shall be released pending trial on bond of KSh. 500,000 plus two sureties of similar amount,
OR
(b) The Accused may be released upon payment of cash bail of Ksh. 500,000.
(c) The bail granted hereof is conditional on the Accused not residing or visiting Githunguri area of Kiambu County while the trial is yet to be concluded and is also conditional on Accused residing with his parents at Loitoktok.
(d) The bail is also on condition the Accused shall not interfere with the prosecution witnesses.
SIGNED AT KIAMBU AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
18th December 2020
Before Justice Mary Kasango
C/A: - Kevin
Accused: Fredrick Nducu Kamau -Present
For Accused - Miss Kimani
For the State - Mr. Kasyoka
COURT
Ruling virtually delivered in their presence.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE