[2018] KEHC 8510 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8510 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent's medical condition, while substantiated by a medical report, was being adequately managed within remand custody and did not amount to a persuasive changed circumstance justifying release on bail. The court reaffirmed its earlier finding that the Respondent was a flight risk,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 8510 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Gilbert Juma Deya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 January 2018
Case Number
Criminal Revision 8 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Revise Bail Decision
Outcome
application allowed; bail set aside; respondent to remain in remand custody
Judges
LK Kimaru
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Trial, Flight Risk, Compelling Reasons, Remand Custody, Medical Grounds, Judicial Review
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Trial Flight Risk Compelling Reasons Remand Custody Medical Grounds Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Gilbert Juma Deya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Revise Bail Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in granting bail to the Respondent despite previous findings of compelling reasons for denial.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's medical condition constitutes a changed circumstance justifying release on bail.
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution has delayed the trial contrary to previous court directives.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent's medical condition, while substantiated by a medical report, was being adequately managed within remand custody and did not amount to a persuasive changed circumstance justifying release on bail. The court reaffirmed its earlier finding that the Respondent was a flight risk, given his history of evading justice for twelve years and using forged documents. The court held that the professional undertaking by the advocate was not a sufficient safeguard against absconding. The prosecution was found to have acted in good faith and had not delayed the trial. Consequently, the trial court's decision to grant bail was set aside, and the Respondent was ordered...

Court Disposition

application allowed; bail set aside; respondent to remain in remand custody

Orders

  • The decision of the trial court granting bail to the Respondent is set aside.
  • The Respondent shall remain in remand custody until the conclusion of the trial.