[2021] KEHC 9394 (KLR)
The court found that the accused is entitled to bail as a constitutional right under Article 49(i)(h), and that the prosecution failed to provide any compelling reasons to justify denial of bail. The pre-bail report was favourable, indicating no risk of flight or interference with witnesses, and both families were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 9394 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Nicholas Kipkemoi Kirui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 17 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- bail granted with conditions
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Right to Bail, Murder Charge
- 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
Nicholas Kipkemoi Kirui
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(i)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has demonstrated compelling reasons to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused is entitled to bail as a constitutional right under Article 49(i)(h), and that the prosecution failed to provide any compelling reasons to justify denial of bail. The pre-bail report was favourable, indicating no risk of flight or interference with witnesses, and both families were amenable to bail. Therefore, the accused was granted bail on specified conditions to ensure attendance at trial and non-interference with witnesses.
Court Disposition
bail granted with conditions
Orders
- The accused shall post cash bail of Kshs.500,000 with one surety of similar amount.
- Alternatively, the accused shall execute a personal bond of Kshs.500,000 and provide two sureties of similar amount each.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 17 OF 2020
REPUBLIC..................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
NICHOLAS KIPKEMOI KIRU.......................ACCUSED
RULING ON BAIL
1. Nicholas Kipkemoi Kirui (Accused) is facing trial on a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code CAP 63 laws of Kenya. He is alleged to have murdered Benard Kiprotich Ngetich at Kipsigirio village in Toboino sub-location Konoin Sub-County within Bomet County on 10th August, 2020.
2. The Accused took plea on 2nd December 2020 and denied the charge. His counsel Ms. Chepkemoi requested the court to direct the filing of a pre-bail report. During the pre-trial session on 16th December 2020, Mr. Ngeno who held Ms. Chepkemoi’s brief made an application for the Accused to be released on bail pending trial.
3. In his submissions, counsel stated that the application was grounded on Article 49 (i) (h) of the Constitution and submitted that it was the Accused’s right to be released on bail pending trial. He submitted that there were no compelling reasons for the Accused not to be released. Counsel submitted further that the Accused was not a flight risk and that the pre-bail report was favourable.
4. On his part Mr. Mureithi for the prosecution submitted that the pre-bail report was favourable to the Accused and left the matter to the discretion of the court.
5. The pre-bail report dated 16th December 2020 states that both the deceased and the Accused were friends as well as neighbours. That the incident shocked both families and the local community. That the two families were ready to commence formal traditional reconciliations and were not averse to the Accused being granted bail.
6. I have considered the application. Article 49 (i) (h) of the Constitution which was cited by defence counsel gives all Accused persons the right to bail unless there were compelling reasons. It is now trite that the compelling reasons must be provided by the prosecution.
7. In R .Vs. Patius Gichobi Njagi & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Criminal Case No. 45 of 2012 (2013) eKLR, this court stated thus:-
“The state’s duty in bringing forth the compelling reasons was aptly discussed by Ibrahim j (as he then was) in the case of R .Vs. Danson Mgunya and Kassim Sheebwana Mohamed Mombasa Criminal Case No. 26 of 2008 wherein he stated:-
“I do hold that if the prosecutor objects to the release of the Accused during pending of a trial then at the first instance, the burden should be on the prosecution and not the Accused to prove or at least demonstrate the existence of the “Compelling reasons.”
8. In this case, the prosecution has not raised any compelling reasons. As shown above the pre-bail report is favourable to the Accused. Having taken all factors into consideration, I find no compelling reason not to release the accused on bail. He is released on the following conditions:-
(i) He shall post cash bail of Kshs.500,000/= with one surety of similar amount.
(ii) As an alternative to 1 above, the Accused shall execute a personal bond of Kshs.500,000/= and provide 2 sureties of similar amount each.
(iii) He shall not interfere with witnesses in any way.
(iv) He shall attend court whenever required and shall not impede the trial in any way.
9. Orders accordingly.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed this 26th day of January, 2021.
..........................
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
Ruling delivered in the presence of the Accused, Defence Counsel Ms. Chepkemoi, Mr. Mureithi for the DPP, and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).