[2014] KEHC 5070 (KLR)
The court found that the accused had substantially contributed to the numerous adjournments since the first hearing date, despite prosecution witnesses being present and traveling from Wundanyi to Mombasa. The court observed that the accused, while on bond, was not desirous of having the matter heard expeditiously....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 5070 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: George Maseghe Mwangemi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 48 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Bond
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Bond Cancellation, Witness Interference, Adjournments, Bail Conditions
- 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
George Maseghe Mwangemi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Bond
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond for the accused should be reinstated after cancellation due to alleged interference with witnesses.
- 2 Whether the accused was responsible for the numerous adjournments in the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused had substantially contributed to the numerous adjournments since the first hearing date, despite prosecution witnesses being present and traveling from Wundanyi to Mombasa. The court observed that the accused, while on bond, was not desirous of having the matter heard expeditiously. There was no change of facts or new intervening factors presented to persuade the court to alter its previous decision. Consequently, the application for reinstatement of bond lacked merit and was disallowed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for reinstatement of bond is disallowed.
- The accused remains in custody pending trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 48 OF 2012
REPUBLIC.....…............................................................….. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
GEORGE MASEGHE MWANGEMI ..........................................…ACCUSED
RULING
This is an application by the defence seeking to have a bond which was canceled by this Court reinstated.
On the 2nd day of April, 2014 an application was made by the prosecution seeking to have the bond for the Accused canceled on account of the Accused interference with Witnesses. In its ruling cancelling the bond the Court observed that the case had been adjourned on numerous occasions at the behest of the defence for various reasons when the Witnesses were present. It was also noted that they come all the way from Wundanyi. The Court also did note that the allegation that he was interfering with Witnesses was a serious one and proceeded to cancel the bond. The grounds for the reinstatement of the bond are that the allegations for interference with Witnesses was unfounded as the Witness who has been interfered with was not disclosed. As to the numerous adjournments its contended that its Counsel for the Accused who caused the adjournments but not the Accused.
I have perused the file and I am satisfied that the Accused has substantially contributed to the numerous adjournments in this case. The case ought to have taken off on the first hearing date which was 8th November, 2012. Since then there has been numerous adjournments at the behest of the defence. In all the days in which the case has been adjourned prosecution Witnesses have been duly present traveling all the way from Wundanyi to Mombasa which is quite an onerous task. It was apparent to the Court that owing to the fact that he was on bond, the Accused was not desirous to have the matter heard expeditiously. There is no change of facts or a new and or intervening factors to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion. The application has no merit and is disallowed.
Ruling delivered dated and signed this 23rd day of May, 2014.
…............
M. MUYA
JUDGE
23RD MAY, 2014
In the presence of:-
Counsel for the applicant
Counsel for the defence Mr Omari
Court clerk Musundi
M. MUYA
JUDGE
Court:Hearing 3rd July, 2014. Prosecution to present Witnesses on the hearing date.
…...............
M. MUYA
JUDGE
23RD MAY, 2014