[2016] KEHC 7539 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 7539 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had presented new evidence not previously considered, specifically a medical report recommending treatment outside prison and an undertaking to reside at his rural home rather than the slum area previously cited as problematic. The State had not provided evidence that the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 7539 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Julius Kaigai Kamande
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Case 19 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Denial
Outcome
application for review of bail denial allowed; bail granted on terms
Judges
J Wakiaga
Legal Topics
Bail Review, Flight Risk, Compelling Reasons, Right to Health, Pretrial Release
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Bail Review Flight Risk Compelling Reasons Right to Health Pretrial Release

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Respondent

Julius Kaigai Kamande

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail Denial

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient change in circumstances to warrant review of the earlier order denying bail.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is a flight risk or likely to interfere with witnesses if released on bail.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's health condition constitutes a compelling reason for granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had presented new evidence not previously considered, specifically a medical report recommending treatment outside prison and an undertaking to reside at his rural home rather than the slum area previously cited as problematic. The State had not provided evidence that the applicant was likely to interfere with witnesses. The court recognized the applicant's constitutional right to bail and to health care, and determined that the applicant had made a sufficient case for review of the earlier order denying bail. The court therefore allowed the application and granted bail on specified terms, balancing the applicant's rights with the need to ensure...

Court Disposition

application for review of bail denial allowed; bail granted on terms

Orders

  • Applicant granted bond of Kshs.1,000,000 with two sureties of like amount.
  • In the alternative, cash bail of Kshs.500,000 granted.