[2015] KEHC 6521 (KLR)
The court found that although the right to bail is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute and may be denied where compelling reasons exist. In this case, the state demonstrated a real likelihood that the accused persons, if released on bond, would interfere with two key witnesses—a minor and a close...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6521 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Musa Kipyego Too; Defendant: Simon Kiptanui Too
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 77 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail/bond Application Pending Trial
- Outcome
- bail/bond application declined at this stage; liberty to renew after key witnesses testify
- Judges
- CW Githua
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference, 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
Musa Kipyego Too
Defendant
Simon Kiptanui Too
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail/bond Application Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons should be admitted to bail/bond pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether the state has demonstrated compelling reasons to deny bail/bond to the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the right to bail is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute and may be denied where compelling reasons exist. In this case, the state demonstrated a real likelihood that the accused persons, if released on bond, would interfere with two key witnesses—a minor and a close relative—both of whom are particularly vulnerable. The pre-bail report confirmed the proximity and relationship between the accused and the witnesses, increasing the risk of interference. The court held that the probability of interference with witnesses, especially vulnerable ones, constitutes a compelling reason to deny bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application for bail/bond...
Court Disposition
bail/bond application declined at this stage; liberty to renew after key witnesses testify
Orders
- The accused persons are not admitted to bond pending trial at this stage.
- The accused persons may renew their bond application after the minor and the accuseds' relative have testified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 77 OF 2014
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MUSA KIPYEGO TOO ………………………………………. 1ST ACCUSED
SIMON KIPTANUI TOO …………………………………… 2ND ACCUSED
RULING
The two accused persons Musa KipyegoToo and Simon Kiptanui Too are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203as read withSection 204of thePenal Code.
It is alleged that on 11th day of November, 2014 at Soi Mining village, Kaimosi sub location, they jointly murdered Luka Tabia Soita.
On 18th December 2014,Mr.Miyienda, learned counsel for the 2nd accused who was also holding brief for Mr. Chepkwonyfor the 1staccused made an oral application seeking that both accused persons be admitted to bond/bail pending their trial.
The application was contested by the state through learned prosecuting counsel Mr. Mulati. He relied on the Replying affidavit sworn on 9th December, 2014 by Chief Inspector Mutune Mukeru, the Investigating officer in this case.
From Mr. Mulati’ssubmissions, it is clear that the state’s opposition to the application is grounded mainly on the fact that one of its witnesses is a minor aged 9 years who is also the accused person’s neighbour. There is also another witness lined up to testify against them who is their sister in law. The state expressed its apprehension that if released on bond, the accused persons are likely to interfere with these two witnesses thus circumventing the course of justice.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both counsel for the accused persons and the state. I find that though under the new constitutional dispensation all accused persons have a right to bail pending trial irrespective of the nature of the offence charged, that right is not absolute and may be denied where compelling reasons exist.
It is trite law that the onus of demonstrating the existence of such compelling reasons rests with the state.
The constitution does not however define what constitutes compelling reasons. The court is tasked with the responsibility of determining what amounts to compelling reasons depending on the circumstances of each case.
As stated earlier, the state is apprehensive that if released on bail, the accused persons who are said to be brothers will interfere with two of its witnesses one of whom is a child of tender years.
To assist me reach a fair determination in this application, I called for the filing of a pre-bail report to furnish the court with more information regarding the relationship of the accused persons and the deceased as well as the witnesses mentioned in the Replying Affidavit.
The Pre- bail report filed on 3rd February, 2015 confirms that the accused persons come from the same locality with the deceased and the minor who is supposed to testify against them in this case. It is not disputed that another proposed witness in this case is the accused’s sister in law.
In the circumstances, I find that the likelihood of the accused persons interfering with the said witnesses if granted bond is real. The probability that an accused person may interfere with potential witnesses if proven to exist is a matter that this court must take seriously because if it were to happen, it would definitely have an adverse effect on the course of justice. This probability is far much higher where the proposed witnesses are vulnerable people like minors or persons having a close relationship with an accused person.
In view of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the state’s apprehension that the accused persons might interfere with witnesses if admitted to bond is justified. And in my opinion, this amounts to a compelling reason to warrant denial of the accused persons’ right to bail/bond at this stage.
I therefore decline to admit the accused persons to bond pending trial for now. I however direct that once the minor and the accused person’s relative have testified, the accused persons may renew their bond application.
It is so ordered.
C. W. GITHUA
JUDGE
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
In the presence of:-
Each accused
Ms Odour for the state
Mr Miyienda for the 1st accused and holding brief for Mr Chepkwony for the 2nd Accused.
Paul Ekitela Court Clerk.