[2019] KEHC 4977 (KLR)
The court found that there were no compelling reasons advanced by the prosecution to deny the accused bail. The prosecution did not oppose the application and did not express any apprehension that the accused would abscond or interfere with witnesses. The relationship between the accused and potential witnesses, who...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 4977 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: John Ndaya Kimani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 56 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- bail granted
- Judges
- AM Cockar
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Right to Bond, Pretrial Detention
- 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
John Ndaya Kimani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the accused bail.
- 3 Whether the relationship between the accused and potential witnesses justifies denial of bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were no compelling reasons advanced by the prosecution to deny the accused bail. The prosecution did not oppose the application and did not express any apprehension that the accused would abscond or interfere with witnesses. The relationship between the accused and potential witnesses, who are family members, was not considered a compelling ground to deny bail. The court also noted that investigations had not progressed for seven months and that it would be unjust to continue detaining the accused indefinitely while awaiting DNA results. Consequently, the accused was granted bail on specified terms.
Court Disposition
bail granted
Orders
- Accused may be released on a cash bail of KShs.100,000.
- Alternatively, accused may be released on a bond of KShs.250,000 with one surety of like sum.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 56 OF 2018
LESIIT, J
REPUBLIC...............................PROSECUTOR
V E R S U S
JOHN NDAYA KIMANI..................ACCUSED
RULING ON BAIL
1. The accused person through Counsel Mr. Mbugua who was holding brief for Ms. Maina re-applied for release of accused on bail pending his trial.
2. The application for bail had already been argued after the defence counsel filed it on 19th November, 2018. It was argued on 11th December, 2018. The ruling of the court on the application is on record. The ruling is dated 13th December, 2018.
3. The effect of the ruling was deferral of bail ruling due to two factors:
a) The prosecution was awaiting DNA results of an examination on a sample taken from the body of the deceased at post mortem.
b) The witnesses in the case and the deceased are family members of the accused. That the deceased was a young son of the accused and the family members were potential witnesses and it was prudent to await the DNA test results as outcome may change the outlook of the case and impact on the investigations which were since still ongoing.
4. The accused has a right to be released on reasonable bond terms pending his trial. He has been in custody since 12th November, 2018. The prosecution did not oppose the application. They only pointed out that the investigations were not complete. The prosecution interviewed the mother of the deceased who is also wife to the accused in court. She was not opposed to the accused being granted bail.
5. The primary consideration in an application for bail is whether or not the accused person will turn up for his trial. Given the prosecution’s submission, this issue is not part of their concern. There is no apprehension of the accused absconding, fleeing or failing to turn up for his trial. That leaves the court to consider the other minor issues which arise in this case.
6. No compelling reasons to deny bail have been advanced by the prosecution. I have noted the relationship between the accused and the potential witnesses. This is not a compelling ground to deny the accused bail.
7. Concerning the incomplete investigations, it has been seven months since the ruling by the court. No progress has been made in the investigations ever since. The Learned Prosecution Counsel Ms. Onunga, informed the court that the Government Chemist were yet to complete analyzing the samples sent to them.
8. Considering that there is no indication of when the awaited results will be availed, it would be unjust to have the accused remanded indeterminate as he awaits the results of the DNA analysis.
9. Having taken all these factors into consideration I will grant the accused bail in the following terms:
a) Accused may be released on a cash bail of KShs.100,000/=.
b) In the alternative the accused may be released on a bond of KShs.250,000/= with one surety of like sum.
c) The accused is warned not to interfere with any of the prosecution witnesses or potential witnesses.
d) The accused should avail himself for his trial as and when required.
10. The accused is warned that breach of any of the terms under (c) and (d) above may result in cancelation of his bond.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE