[2024] KEHC 16349 (KLR)
The court found that the accused had not presented any proposed sureties for approval, nor was there evidence that any surety had been rejected. The bond terms set were within the usual range for murder cases and deemed reasonable. The pre-bail report raised concerns about the accused's character and risk to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 16349 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Edwin Wanderi Otieno
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E022 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond Terms
- Outcome
- application for review of bond terms declined
- Judges
- DK Kemei
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Bail and Bond, Pre Bail Report, Compelling Reasons, Presumption of Innocence
- 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
Edwin Wanderi Otieno
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to a review of bond terms pending trial.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has furnished compelling reasons to deny the accused a review of bond terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused had not presented any proposed sureties for approval, nor was there evidence that any surety had been rejected. The bond terms set were within the usual range for murder cases and deemed reasonable. The pre-bail report raised concerns about the accused's character and risk to the community, but the accused could secure release upon providing a suitable surety. In the absence of new or sufficient reasons to justify a review, the application for review of bond terms was declined.
Court Disposition
application for review of bond terms declined
Orders
- Defence request for review of bond is declined.
- Matter to proceed for further hearing on 20/1/2025.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Republic v Otieno (Criminal Case E022 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 16349 (KLR) (17 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16349 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Criminal Case E022 of 2023
DK Kemei, J
December 17, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Edwin Wanderi Otieno
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused herein is currently facing a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars of the offence are that on the night of 24th and 25th August, 2022 at Mudindi village West Uholo location in Ugenya sub-county within Siaya County jointly with others not before curt murdered one Beatrice Atieno Sulwe.
3. The accused denied he charge and the matter is currently ongoing wherein four witnesses have since testified and that the next hearing date is 20/1/2025.
4. Learned counsel for the defence has sought for review of bond terms as the accused has not been able to post bail. Learned counsel pointed out the sentiments of the probation officer in the pre-bail report are mere speculations and urged the court to grant the defence request for review of bond since the main concern is whether the accused will attend court for his trial.
5. Learned counsel for the prosecution opposed the review of bond and relied on the contents of the pre-bail report dated 2/12/2024.
6. I given due consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsels as well as the pre-bail report dated 2/12/2024. It is not in dispute that the accused entered a plea of not guilty to the charge herein and therefore he is deemed innocent until proved guilty. It is also not in dispute that vide Article 49 (1) (d) the accused is entitled to be released on bond pending trial unless there are compelling reasons to be furnished by the prosecution not to be released. It is noted that upon the accused taking plea and denying the charge the court granted him a bond of kshs500,000/= plus one surety of like sum. Hence, it is clear that the accused could secure his freedom anytime once he secured a surety to bail him out.The pre-bail report dated 2/12/2024 indicated that the local administration depicts him as a person with a history of involvement in unlawful activities and that he has a propensity for violence. It further indicates that he instils fear among community members and that he is a potential danger to peace and security of the community. It was the opinion of the probation officer that there is a likelihood of accused failing to attend court if released on lesser bond terms.
7. Looking at the circumstances of the case as well as the pre-bail report, there is no evidence that the accused has sought to present proposed sureties for approval by the court. The record does not indicate any particular date that proposed sureties presented themselves to the court (Deputy Registrar) and that there are no records indicating that any surety was found to be unsuitable to stand for the accused. In the absence of such evidence, I am not satisfied that good reasons have been furnished to justify review of bond terms. I find the bond terms herein to be reasonable in the circumstances and fall within the range usually granted by this court in several cases of this nature.
8. In the result, the defence request for review of bond is declined. Matter to proceed for further hearing on the 20/1/2025. Production order to issue.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY DECEMBER, 2024D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of:Edwin Wanderi Otieno…..AccusedMocha………………………..for ProsecutionOgendo………………………...Court Assistant