[2020] KEHC 5830 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 5830 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to rebut the prosecution's assertion that he is a flight risk, given his arrest three months after the alleged offence in a different county and the absence of any affidavit or explanation from the applicant. The court held that this unchallenged evidence constituted a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 5830 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mathews Mbaya alias Mathew; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Republic)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Case 70 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Trial, Flight Risk, Compelling Reasons, Pre Trial Custody
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Bail Pending Trial Flight Risk Compelling Reasons Pre Trial Custody

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathews Mbaya alias Mathew

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Republic)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the applicant bail, specifically flight risk and likelihood of interference with witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to rebut the prosecution's assertion that he is a flight risk, given his arrest three months after the alleged offence in a different county and the absence of any affidavit or explanation from the applicant. The court held that this unchallenged evidence constituted a compelling reason to deny bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution. The allegation of potential interference with witnesses was not supported by evidence, and all witnesses had already testified. Therefore, the only compelling reason established was the risk of absconding, justifying the denial of bail.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for bail dated 24.2.2020 is dismissed.
  • The accused shall remain in custody pending determination of the case.