[2011] KEHC 938 (KLR)
The court found that the accused and the deceased's family are closely related, which means the witnesses are also likely to be related to both parties. This relationship increases the risk of interference with witnesses. The State's argument that there is a likelihood of interference with witnesses was accepted as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 938 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Peter Gutuma Njogu; Applicant: Charles Mwangi Kimani; Applicant: John Wachira Muriithi; Applicant: Francis Wachira Muriithi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 21 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bond Application
- Outcome
- Bond application declined at this stage; court to reconsider after hearing evidence of at least five witnesses.
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference
- 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
Peter Gutuma Njogu
Applicant
Charles Mwangi Kimani
Applicant
John Wachira Muriithi
Applicant
Francis Wachira Muriithi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bond Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons are entitled to bond pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the accused persons bond, specifically the likelihood of interference with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused and the deceased's family are closely related, which means the witnesses are also likely to be related to both parties. This relationship increases the risk of interference with witnesses. The State's argument that there is a likelihood of interference with witnesses was accepted as a compelling reason to deny bond at this stage. The court held that, in light of these circumstances, it would be prudent to defer the bond application until after the evidence of at least five witnesses has been heard, at which point the risk of interference can be reassessed. The right to bond is not absolute and may be limited where compelling reasons are established by the...
Court Disposition
Bond application declined at this stage; court to reconsider after hearing evidence of at least five witnesses.
Orders
- Bond is declined for now.
- The court will reconsider the bond application after listening to the evidence of at least five witnesses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 21 0F 2011
REPUBLIC ……….. ………….. ……........................... …………PROSECUTOR/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
PETER GUTUMA NJOGU ………...........................…………………1ST ACCUSED/APPLICANT
CHARLES MWANGI KIMANI …................................………………… 2ND ACCUSED/APPLICANT
JOHN WACHIRA MURIITHI …...............................…………………. 3RD ACCUSED/APPLICANT
FRANCIS WACHIRA MURIITHI ………..................................……… 4TH ACCUSED/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
This is an application for bond dated 27/10/2011. It’s supported by the affidavit of Nduku Njuki Counsel for the accused persons. In his affidavit he says he has gone through all the statements of the witnesses and none has adversely mentioned any of the accused persons. The application is made pursuant to Section 357(1) Criminal Procedure Code and Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution.
The State has opposed the release of the accused persons on bond, saying they face a serious offence. She further says they are likely to interfere with witnesses, who are related to them.
I am alive to the provisions of Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution concerning bond to arrested persons. The provisions say, the arrested person to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
It’s the State which could give any compelling reasons for not releasing an arrested person on bond.
Counsel says the evidence in the witness statements does not adversely touch any of the accused. Then why are they before court? It’s unfortunate that it’s only the Prosecution and Defence who are in possession of the evidence involved herein.
One thing comes out clearly that the accused and the deceased’s family are closely related which means the witnesses must also be related to the accused persons and the deceased in one way or another. The chances of interference with witnesses cannot just be wished away. And for this reason I decline to grant bond for now. The court will reconsider the bond application after listening to the evidence of at least five(5) witnesses.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT EMBU THIS 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011.
H.I. ONG’UDI
J U D G E