[2018] KEHC 4395 (KLR)
The court found that, due to the multifaceted and complex nature of the ongoing investigations, which involve multiple suspects and leads, the prosecution had established sufficient grounds to justify further detention of the respondent for fourteen days. The court emphasized that the respondent's constitutional...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 4395 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Michael Juma Onyamo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 42 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Further Detention Pending Investigations
- Outcome
- Application for further detention allowed.
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Pretrial Detention, Police Investigations, Constitutional Rights of Accused
- 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
Michael Juma Onyamo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Further Detention Pending Investigations
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established sufficient grounds for further detention of the respondent for fourteen days pending investigations.
- 2 Whether the respondent's constitutional rights have been or will be infringed by continued detention.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, due to the multifaceted and complex nature of the ongoing investigations, which involve multiple suspects and leads, the prosecution had established sufficient grounds to justify further detention of the respondent for fourteen days. The court emphasized that the respondent's constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected during detention, including access to advocates and vetted relatives. The court also noted that the respondent would be brought to court after the fourteen days, at which point he could be formally charged or released, and would be at liberty to apply for bail. The court refrained from commenting on alleged mistreatment or breaches...
Court Disposition
Application for further detention allowed.
Orders
- The respondent shall be detained at Muthaiga Police Station for a further period of fourteen (14) days.
- During detention, the respondent's constitutional rights shall be respected, including access to advocates during daytime and vetted relatives.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.42 OF 2018
REPUBLIC...........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
MICHAEL JUMA ONYAMO.........................RESPONDENT
RULING
The issue before this court is rather straight forward: Has the prosecution laid sufficient basis for this court to order for the subject to be detained for a further fourteen (14) days?As I get it, the prosecution is saying that the investigations being undertaken by the police is multifaceted and involves many leads and suspect both in custody and at large. There is forensic material to be examined and processed. There is also the element of public interest which must be taken into consideration. The defence team is of the view that the continued detention of the subject is unjustified in view of the period of seven (7) days that he has now been in police custody. They are of the view that the police have had sufficient time to process the subject. They have also complained of the subject’s alleged mistreatment while in police custody and further pointed out the alleged breach of the initial orders issued by the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Homabay. The family of the deceased’s interest is for justice to be done and the truth be established why their daughter and her unborn child had to so tragically meet their deaths.
The first issue that this court will address is on the question of jurisdiction. This court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter that the court has been addressed. I did not hear defence counsel question this court’s jurisdiction. On the merits of the application, this court agrees with the prosecution that due to the multifaceted and complex nature of the investigations, that is, it involves many suspects and many leads, it is only fair that the subject continues to be detained for a further period of fourteen (14) days. He shall be detained at Muthaiga Police Station. During his detention, his rights and fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed by theConstitution shall be respected; he shall be allowed access to his advocates during daytime. His relatives, who shall be vetted, shall also be granted access to see him. He shall be brought to court after the expiry of the fourteen (14) days where the prosecution shall be required either to have him formally charged or be released.
Pursuant to Article 49(1)(g) of the Constitution, this court shall read the charge to the subject but shall not require him to plead to the same. The purpose of reading the charge is so as to notify or put the subject on notice of the charge he is likely to face. The subject shall be at liberty to apply for bail pursuant to Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution upon the expiry of the fourteen (14) days. This court has desisted from making any comments in regard to what transpired from the day the subject was arrested to today when he was arraigned before this court because it may form part of the defence of the subject if he is tried. It is only the trial court that has jurisdiction to address the matter. The defence counsel are at liberty to raise the issues before the trial court. Those are the orders of the court.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
L. KIMARU
JUDGE