[2019] KEHC 10876 (KLR)
The court found that the circumstances which led to the initial denial of bail had not changed. The accused persons remained at risk due to ongoing community hostility and the possibility of revenge. Additionally, neither accused had a fixed abode, and the 2nd accused was still considered a flight risk. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 10876 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Patrick Muthee; Defendant: Samuel Kaberia Muthee
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 47 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- bail application denied; accused to remain in custody pending trial
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Murder Charge, Flight Risk, Witness Interference, Community Safety
- Source Language
- english
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
Patrick Muthee
Defendant
Samuel Kaberia Muthee
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons should be released on bail pending trial for murder.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the circumstances which led to the initial denial of bail had not changed. The accused persons remained at risk due to ongoing community hostility and the possibility of revenge. Additionally, neither accused had a fixed abode, and the 2nd accused was still considered a flight risk. The court concluded that these factors constituted compelling reasons to deny bail, as the safety of the accused and the integrity of the trial could not be guaranteed if they were released. The application for bail was therefore rejected, and the accused were ordered to remain in custody until the case is heard.
Court Disposition
bail application denied; accused to remain in custody pending trial
Orders
- The accused persons' application for bail is rejected.
- The accused persons shall remain in custody until the case is heard.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 47 OF 2016
REPUBLIC..........................................PROSECUTOR
-Versus-
PATRICK MUTHEE..........................1STACCUSSED
SAMUEL KABERIA MUTHEE.....2ND ACCUSSED
RULING
[1] The accused persons are charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the penal code Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya. The accused persons have sought to be released on bail pending the hearing and determination of this case.
[2] This Court considered a bail application and on 12th February 2018 made a determination denying both the accused persons bail on the basis on the grounds that; (1) there is still eminent danger to the accused persons if released; (2) there is a likelihood of the accused persons interfering with the witnesses; and (3) there is likelihood of accused absconding since they do not have a fived abode.
[3] Another request to be released on bond has been made by the accused persons. The Probation officer has also filed fresh pre-bail reports dated 1st October 2018 in relation to the accused persons. These reports are strikingly similar to the probation officer’s report dated 1st November 2017. According to the new reports, the victim’s family as well as their own families is still opposed to them being released from custody. They fear for their lives as the Community is still charged with anger over the offence hence chances of revenge are still high.
[5] Notably also, the accused persons do not have any fixed abode at this time. The only indication is the 1st accused person made some premises on ½ an Acre in Kathanji but we are told that this is his fixed residence or abode. The recent pre-bail report also states that the 2nd accused person is still a flight risk.
[6] Iam therefore convinced that the same conditions as at the Ruling of 12th February 2018 still obtain to wit:-
(a) The safety of the accused cannot be guaranteed as the community still raves with anger and desire for revenge; and
(b) The attendance of the accused person during trial is not guaranteed, for they have no fixed abode and are flight risk.
[7] Accordingly, I find that there are compelling reasons not to release the accused persons on bail. I therefore reject the accused person’s application for bail. The accused persons will remain in custody until this case is heard.
Dated Signed and delivered in open Court at Meru this 16th Day of January, 2019
----------------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In presence of -;
Namiti for state
Muriuki for 1st accused person – absent
Gitonga for 2nd accused person
Both accused - present
----------------------------------
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE