[2025] KEHC 6839 (KLR)
The court found that the application for bail was incompetent because it was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant's mother, who was neither the accused nor a surety at the time of swearing. The court emphasized that only a person with full knowledge of the facts and direct involvement in the matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6839 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Moses Karanja Ndirangu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E022 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed as incompetent
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Bail Application, Affidavit Competency, 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
Applicant
Moses Karanja Ndirangu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bail application is competent when supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant's mother rather than the applicant himself.
- 2 Whether a proposed surety can depose to facts on behalf of an accused who has full capacity to swear his own affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for bail was incompetent because it was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant's mother, who was neither the accused nor a surety at the time of swearing. The court emphasized that only a person with full knowledge of the facts and direct involvement in the matter should depose to such an affidavit. The applicant, having full capacity, did not provide any reason for failing to swear the affidavit himself. The court further held that Article 50 of the Constitution does not allow a third party to act on behalf of an accused with full capacity without reasonable excuse. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of proper evidence in...
Court Disposition
application dismissed as incompetent
Orders
- The application dated 15th December 2023 is dismissed and/or struck out for want of competent evidence.
- The applicant is at liberty to file a competent application for consideration on merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Republic v Ndirangu (Criminal Case E022 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 6839 (KLR) (2 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6839 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Criminal Case E022 of 2022
GL Nzioka, J
April 2, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Moses Karanja Ndirangu
Accused
Ruling
1. By a notice of motion application dated 15th December 2023, the applicant seeks to be admitted to reasonable bond terms pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
2. The respondent filed in response grounds of opposition dated 22nd May 2024 and affidavits dated 9th July 2024 and 10th July 2024 sworn by Lydia Wamaitha Mwangi and No. 104943 PC Linda Were the investigating officer respectively opposing the release of the applicant on bail.
3. Subsequently, the court ordered for a pre-bail report and a report dated 28th May 2024 was filed.
4. At the hearing of application an issue arose as to whether the application filed by the applicant is competent on the ground that it is supported by an affidavit sworn by one Rose Njeri Ndirangu who deposes that she is the applicant’s mother. The argument by the respondent is that she is not competent to depose to matters that are not within her knowledge.
5. However, the applicant argues that the deponent is his surety and therefore can depose on behalf as to his suitability to be released on bond. That under Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the applicant can be represented by an intermediary.
6. However, the respondent in response argues that since the applicant has not been granted bond yet it cannot be argued that the deponent is a surety.
7. Having considered the afore arguments, I note first and foremost there is no reason advanced as to why the applicant could not swear an affidavit in support of his own application. Secondly, it is a fact that the deponent cannot purport to be swearing the affidavit as a surety since she is not yet one. Thirdly, Article 50 which has been referred to does not envisage a situation where a person with full capacity to prosecute his case allows a third party to do so without reasonable excuse.
8. Finally, a person who deposes to any fact must state in no uncertain terms that he or she has full knowledge of the matters they are deposing to and believe the same to be true. The deponent herein can purport to have full knowledge of matters deposed on. Furthermore, if need arises to cross-examine the deponent she may not be able to authenticate her averments.
9. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the application, I find the application incompetent for want of evidence in support thereof and dismiss it and/or strikes it out.
10. However, the applicant has leave and is at liberty to file a competent application for consideration by the court on merits.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025. GRACE L. NZIOKAJUDGE