[2016] KEHC 5463 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant is entitled to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, as the prosecution did not provide any compelling reasons to deny bail. The right to bail is constitutionally protected, and the presumption of innocence applies. The court considered the seriousness of the offence but...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5463 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Pauline Wawira Muchira; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Murder Case 2 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application for bail allowed
- Judges
- BB Limo
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Right to Bail, 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
Pauline Wawira Muchira
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the applicant bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant is entitled to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, as the prosecution did not provide any compelling reasons to deny bail. The right to bail is constitutionally protected, and the presumption of innocence applies. The court considered the seriousness of the offence but noted that this alone is not a compelling reason to deny bail. The probation officer's report was favourable, and the applicant has a permanent home within the jurisdiction and undertook not to interfere with witnesses or abscond. Therefore, the application for bail was allowed, subject to stringent terms.
Court Disposition
application for bail allowed
Orders
- The applicant may be released on her own bond of Kshs.500,000 with a surety of a similar amount.
- The applicant is required to strictly attend court whenever required.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERUGOYA
CRIMINAL MURDER CASE NO. 2 OF 2016
REPUBLIC......................................................PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS-
PAULINE WAWIRA MUCHIRA.............................ACCUSED
RULING
1. Pauline Wawira Muchira,the applicant is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence as per the information presented to court is that on the night of 27th January, 2016 within Kerugoya Township, Kirinyaga County, she unlawfully murdered Joseph Abonyo Marambah. She denied the offence on 8th February, 2016 when the plea was taken and the trial was scheduled for 29th June, 2016. She has now moved this Court through a Notice of Motion dated 17th February, 2016 for bond/bail pending the hearing and determination of this case.
2. The grounds upon which the application is made are as follows:
a.That the applicant is entitled to bail under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution.
b.That the applicant has a permanent home within the jurisdiction of this court and will not abscond.
c.That the applicant will not interfere in any way with the investigations of the case.
d.That there are no special or peculiar circumstances that will bar the accused from being released on bond pending trial.
3. The application was supported by the affidavit of the applicant and the oral submission made through her learned counsel Mr. Maina Kagio. It was submitted that under the law the accused person was entitled to bond unless there are compelling reasons. It was further submitted that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent was served with the application and offered no reason to deny the applicant bail. Mr. Maina further relied on the probation officer’s report which he submitted was favourable to the application.
4. The Respondent through Mr. Sitati told this Court that they were not opposed to the application but urged this Court to give stringent terms as the offence facing the applicant was serious.
5. I have considered the application and the submissions made. Right to bail is imbedded in our Constitution as correctly put by the applicant. Under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution an accused person has a right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable terms pending trial unless there are compelling reasons to deny him/her of the right. As indicated above the State or the Respondent has not opposed the application for bond and having offered no reason to deny the applicant herein her right to bail, this Court finds no reason to deny her the right. The law recognizes her right to presumption of innocence until contrary is proved. This Court finds merit in the application dated 17th February, 2016. The same is allowed. The accused person may be released on her own bond of Kshs.500,000/= with a surety of a similar amount. She is required to strictly attend court whenever required and not to attempt any contacts or interference with the prosecution witnesses in this case.
Dated and delivered at Kerugoya this 4th day of May, 2016.
R. K. LIMO
JUDGE
4. 5.2016
Before Hon. Justice R. Limo
State Counsel Omayo
Court Assistant Willy Mwangi
Accused present
Interpretation English-Kiswahili
Nduku for Maina for accused present
Omayo for State present
Ruling signed, dated and delivered in the open court in the presence of Nduku holding brief for Maina for the accused and Mr. Omayo for the State.
R. K. LIMO
JUDGE
4. 5.2016