[2013] KEHC 2018 (KLR)
The court found that although bail can be granted at any stage of the trial, the interests of justice in this case would be better served by expediting the conclusion of the trial rather than granting bail. The trial had substantially progressed, with the prosecution having closed its case and the matter awaiting a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2018 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Peter Kinyua Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 45 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, 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
Respondent
Peter Kinyua Mwangi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(i)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the applicant bail at this stage of the proceedings.
- 3 Whether the applicant's ill-health justifies release on compassionate grounds.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although bail can be granted at any stage of the trial, the interests of justice in this case would be better served by expediting the conclusion of the trial rather than granting bail. The trial had substantially progressed, with the prosecution having closed its case and the matter awaiting a ruling on whether the applicant had a case to answer. The applicant's claim of ill-health was unsupported by medical evidence and thus not a sufficient ground for release. The court exercised its discretion to deny bail, finding no compelling reasons to grant the application at this stage.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail dated 7th May 2013 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO.45 OF 2009
REPUBLIC…………………………………………..RESPONDENT
VERSUS
PETER KINYUA MWANGI……….…...ACCUSED/APPLICANT
RULING
Peter Kinyua Mwangi is facing trial for the murder of Mirriam Muthoni. According to the information dated 8th May 2009, the offence is alleged to have taken place on 22nd April 2009 at Kiangombe Embakasi within Nairobi Area. He took plea on 9th June 2009 before Apondi J. and denied the charge.
The accused has now applied for bail. In his application dated 7th May 2010 he seeks to be released on compassionate grounds owing to his ill-health. He also states that there was no likelihood of interference with witnesses since all of them have testified.
The application is opposed by the State through the Replying Affidavit of No. 70406 PC Joseph Ologe who is the Investigating officer in the case. His averments are to the effect that the applicant will be tempted to abscond in view of the evidence already tendered against him.
At the hearing of the application on 31st July 2013, I heard oral submissions from Mr. Mathenge and Ms Ikol for the applicant and respondent respectively. Mr. Mathenge submitted that there were no compelling reasons why the applicant should not be released; that the applicant had the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty; and that there was no chance of interference with witnesses.
Ms. Ikol urged the court to deny the applicant bail in view of the overwhelming evidence already tendered; that in view of such evidence the applicant would be tempted to abscond.
I have considered the application. Article 49(i) (h) of the Constitution entitles an accused to be released on bail pending trial. It also vests in the court the discretion to deny or grant bail depending on the circumstances and facts of each case. This is the discretion that is exercisable by the court in determining whether or not there are compelling reasons. Such discretion must however be exercised judiciously.
In the present application, it is not disputed that the trial has progressed substantially. Infact the prosecution has closed its case and the parties are awaiting the Ruling of the trial Judge as to whether or not the applicant has a case to answer. I have perused the record and noted that the trial has been slowed down by the transfer of the trial Judges. The trial commenced on 9th June 2010 before Lesiit J. who heard 3 witnesses before she was transferred. Directions were then taken before Ochieng J. on 30th September 2010 who directed that the case proceeds from where it had reached. Ochieng J. heard only one witness before directing that the matter be heard by another judge in the murder section. On 3rd February 2012 Ombija J. proceeded with the trial and heard 3 more witnesses before the prosecution closed its case. As stated earlier, the case is now awaiting the ruling as to whether the accused has a case to answer or not.
While I am aware that bail can be granted at any stage of the trial, I am of the view that justice shall be served in this case by expediting the conclusion of the trial rather than allowing the application.
Finally, the applicant has stated in his application that he is of ill-health. I find however that his averment in the supporting affidavit has not been supported by any medical record. I am therefore disinclined to consider this ground.
In the premises and for the foregoing reasons I dismiss the application dated 7th May 2013.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Nairobi this 26th day of September, 2013
R. LAGAT - KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………….: Court clerk
……………………………: Applicant
…………………………….: For the applicant
…………………………….: For the state/respondent