[2013] KEHC 1983 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's opposition to bail was based on the assertion that the applicant was a flight risk because he did not report the offence and fled to his rural home. However, the court noted that the affidavit did not specify when and where the applicant was arrested, and there was no concrete...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1983 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: John Muganda Chavasi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 23 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application for bail allowed
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Flight Risk, Interference With Witnesses
- 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
Respondent
John Muganda Chavasi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the applicant bail, specifically risk of absconding or interference with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's opposition to bail was based on the assertion that the applicant was a flight risk because he did not report the offence and fled to his rural home. However, the court noted that the affidavit did not specify when and where the applicant was arrested, and there was no concrete evidence presented to demonstrate a real likelihood of absconding or interference with witnesses. The court concluded that the fears expressed by the respondent were not substantiated by evidence and therefore did not amount to compelling reasons to deny bail. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to be released on bail pending trial, subject to conditions set by the court.
Court Disposition
application for bail allowed
Orders
- The applicant shall execute a bond of Kshs.1,000,000 with two sureties of like amount.
- The applicant shall report to Muthangari Police Station once every 2 weeks until further orders of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO.23 OF 2013
REPUBLIC…………………………………………..RESPONDENT
VERSUS
JOHN MUGANDA CHARASI…………ACCUSED/APPLICANT
RULING
The accused John Muganda Chavasi is charged with the murder of Briton Okutoi Chavasi. He is alleged to have committed the offence on 6th January 2013 at Kawangware 56 area within Nairobi County. He was arraigned in court on 19th February 2013 when he pleaded not guilty and was remanded in custody.
On 20th March 2013, he filed the instant application dated 18th March 2013 seeking to be released on bail. He has stated in his application inter alia that he will attend court and will not interfere with witnesses.
The application is opposed by the State through the Replying affidavit of Inspector Kiplagat of Muthangari Police Station. In the affidavit he avers that the applicant was likely to abscond since he failed to report the offence when it occurred but instead fled to his rural home.
At the hearing of the application on 3rd July 2013 I heard submissions from Mr. Oundu and Mr. Konga for the applicant and respondent respectively. I also called for and considered a pre-bail report in respect of the applicant.
Having considered the rival affidavits and submissions, it is apparent to me that the State opposes the application because of the likelihood of the applicant absconding. He is considered a flight risk for the reason that he did not report the offence but instead fled to his rural home from where he was arrested. It is not however stated in the affidavit when and where the applicant was arrested. I find that there is nothing in the replying affidavit or in the submissions of the respondent’s counsel which demonstrate the real likelihood that the applicant will abscond. I also find no demonstrated likelihood of interference with witnesses. I therefore must dismiss the respondent’s fears as no concrete basis has been laid for the same.
Consequently, I find no compelling reasons to warrant denial of bail. The applicant shall be released on the following terms:-
He shall execute a bond of Kshs.1,000,000/- with two sureties of like amount.
He shall report to the Muthangari Police Station once every 2 weeks until further orders of this court.
He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without leave of the court.
He shall attend the mention of his case once every month. The first of such mention shall be on 31st October, 2013.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Nairobi this 25th day of September, 2013
R. LAGAT - KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………….: Court clerk
……………………………: Applicant
…………………………….: For the accused/applicant
…………………………….: For the state/respondent