[2016] KEHC 1567 (KLR)
The court found that the accused persons have close familial relationships with several material witnesses, including siblings and other relatives, and that both the accused and the witnesses reside in the same compound. This proximity and relationship create a real and not merely speculative risk of interference...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1567 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Henry Chege Kamau; Defendant: Evans Mukundi Chege
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 2 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
- Outcome
- bail_denied
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Henry Chege Kamau
Defendant
Evans Mukundi Chege
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons should be granted bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail, specifically the likelihood of interference with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused persons have close familial relationships with several material witnesses, including siblings and other relatives, and that both the accused and the witnesses reside in the same compound. This proximity and relationship create a real and not merely speculative risk of interference with witnesses if the accused are released on bail. The court held that this constitutes a compelling reason to deny bail, as required by Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Consequently, the application for bail was refused, and the accused were ordered to remain in custody during their trial.
Court Disposition
bail_denied
Orders
- The application for bail by the accused persons is refused.
- The accused persons shall remain in custody during their trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL CASE NO 2 OF 2014
REPUBLIC.……………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
1. HENRY CHEGE KAMAU
2. EVANS MUKUNDI CHEGE…….………………….……ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. The Accused persons in this case, Henry Chege Kamau and Evans Mukundi Chege, are charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged in the information dated 06/01/2014 that on 01/01/2014 at about 9. 00 p.m. at Kihuro Village in Kiairathe Sub-location within Kangema District of Murang’a County, they murdered one Joseph Kamau Kimani. On 29/01/2014 they pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their trial has been adjourned a number of times for recorded reasons. The trial is now scheduled to commence on 12/07/2016.
2. The Accused persons have in the meantime applied by notice of motion dated 12/10/2015 to be admitted to bail pending their trial. The application has been opposed by the Republic by a replying affidavit sworn by one CI Simon Too, the investigating officer of the case, upon the ground that the Accused are likely to interfere with witnesses if released.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Accused persons, and also those of learned prosecution counsel for the Republic.
4. Bail pending trial is now a constitutional right for all criminal offences, and will be denied only for compelling reason. Any condition the court might impose for such bail must be reasonable. See Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
5. The factual basis for the investigator’s apprehension of the likelihood of interference with witnesses by the Accused persons is their close relationship with material witnesses. In this regard I have perused the witness statements and other documents supplied by the prosecution to the Accused persons and to the court. I note that the Deceased in this case was an uncle to one of the material witnesses. That material witness is a brother to the 1st Accused. Another material witness is a sister of the Deceased and the mother of the 1st Accused as well as some material witnesses. The 2nd Accused is also an uncle to the 1st Accused and also to some of the material witnesses.
6. It is also apparent that the Accused persons and the material witnesses live in the same compound.
7. In these circumstances it is not farfetched to apprehend that interference with material witnesses is a real possibility. I therefore consider that there is a compelling reason to deny the Accused persons bail. Their application is refused. They shall remain in custody during their trial. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016