[2021] KEHC 4725 (KLR)
The court found that there were no compelling reasons presented by the prosecution to deny the accused bail. The pre-bail report indicated that the accused was not a flight risk, had a fixed abode, and had sureties willing to guarantee his attendance. The prosecution did not oppose the application, and the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4725 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Kelvine Nasiaho Wanyonyi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E006 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
- Outcome
- bail_granted_with_conditions
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Murder Charge, Compelling Reasons, Pre Bail Report
- 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
Kelvine Nasiaho Wanyonyi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether there exist any compelling reasons to deny the accused bail as per Article 49 (i) h of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were no compelling reasons presented by the prosecution to deny the accused bail. The pre-bail report indicated that the accused was not a flight risk, had a fixed abode, and had sureties willing to guarantee his attendance. The prosecution did not oppose the application, and the court emphasized that the main purpose of bail is to secure the accused's attendance at trial. Therefore, the accused was entitled to bail on reasonable terms with conditions to ensure attendance and non-interference with witnesses.
Court Disposition
bail_granted_with_conditions
Orders
- The accused shall execute a personal bond of Kshs.300,000 and provide two sureties of similar amount each.
- The accused shall not interfere with prosecution witnesses in any way.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BOMET
CRIMINAL CASE NO E006 OF 2021
REPUBLIC...........................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
KELVINE NASIAHO WANYONYI..........................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. Kelvine Nasiaho Wanyonyi (Accused) is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence are that on the 24th day of April 2021 at Kaproret estate of James Finlay Tea Estate Saosa Sub-location in Konoin Sub-County within Bomet County jointly with another not before court, murdered one Noah Mukachelelwa Mtenyo.
2. The Accused took plea on 6th May 2021 and pleaded not guilty. The case has already gone through a pre-trail and is set to commence on 23rd November 2021.
3. The Accused now seeks to be released on bail pending trial. In urging the application, learned defence counsel Ms. Chepkemoi submitted that the Accused hailed from Kakamega County and was not a flight risk; that his family members were willing to stand surety for him and ensure his attendance at his trial. Counsel prayed for reasonable bond terms.
4. Mr. Murithi for the prosecution submitted that the pre-bail report filed by the Probation Officer was favourable to the Accused. He left the matter to the discretion of the court.
5. I have considered the application. A bail information report filed by the Probation Officer states that the Accused and the deceased both hailed from Kakamega County where they were neighbours and that at the time of the commission of the offence, they both lived together at the James Finlay Tea Estate in Bomet County where they worked as casual labourers. The report further states that the Accused had a fixed abode and was not a flight risk. It recommends his release on bail.
6. I have observed that the Prosecution has not opposed the application and neither have they brought to the attention of the court the existence of any compelling reasons as envisaged in Article 49 (i) h of the Constitution.
7. It is trite that the primary purpose of bail is to secure the Accused’s attendance at trial. In this case, it has been demonstrated that the Accused was willing to attend trial and that the sureties were ready to ensure his attendance.
8. Having taken all factors into consideration, I grant the Accused bail on the following conditions:-
i. The Accused shall execute a personal bond of Kshs.300,000/= and provide 2 sureties of similar amount each.
ii. He shall not interfere with prosecution witnesses in any way.
iii. He shall attend court whenever required and shall not impede the trial in any way.
9. Orders accordingly.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
................................
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
Ruling delivered in the presence of the Accused, Defence Counsel Ms. Chepkemoi, Mr. Murithi for the DPP, and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).