[2019] KEHC 4954 (KLR)
The court found that the accused persons are entitled to bail as a constitutional right under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, and that there were no compelling reasons advanced by the prosecution to justify denial of bail. The prosecution expressly did not oppose bail and only requested undertakings from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 4954 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Rachael Wanjiku Muthoni; Defendant: Antony Wakahia Njeri; Defendant: Stephen Odhiambo Ouma; Defendant: Harrison Onkonji Mung’uni
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 32 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail
- Outcome
- bail granted with conditions
- Judges
- AM Cockar
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Murder Charge, Compelling Reasons, Constitutional Rights, Bond Terms
- 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
Rachael Wanjiku Muthoni
Defendant
Antony Wakahia Njeri
Defendant
Stephen Odhiambo Ouma
Defendant
Harrison Onkonji Mung’uni
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons are entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail to the accused persons.
- 3 What constitutes reasonable bond terms in light of the accused persons' personal circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused persons are entitled to bail as a constitutional right under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, and that there were no compelling reasons advanced by the prosecution to justify denial of bail. The prosecution expressly did not oppose bail and only requested undertakings from the accused not to interfere with witnesses and to provide details of their residence. The court considered the personal means and circumstances of the accused as set out in their affidavits, noting their humble backgrounds, and determined that reasonable bail terms should be set accordingly. The court therefore granted bail with conditions tailored to ensure attendance at trial and...
Court Disposition
bail granted with conditions
Orders
- Each accused may be released on cash bail of KShs.100,000.
- Alternatively, each accused may be released on a bond of KShs.250,000 with one surety of like sum.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 32 OF 2019
LESIIT, J
REPUBLIC.................................................................................PROSECUTOR
V E R S U S
RACHAEL WANJIKU MUTHONI..........................................1ST ACCUSED
ANTONY WAKAHIA NJERI...................................................2ND ACCUSED
STEPHEN ODHIAMBO OUMA..............................................3RD ACCUSED
HARRISON ONKONJI MUNG’UNI.......................................4TH ACCUSED
RULING ON BAIL
1. The accused persons are facing a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. They seek to be released on bail pending their trial under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution.
2. Ms Onunga, Learned Prosecution Counsel did not oppose the application for bail. Counsel however asked that the accused persons be required by the court to make an undertaking not to interfere with the witnesses in this case and further to furnish full details of their fixed place of abode.
3. The court made the order required that each accused files an affidavit giving details of their place of abode and an undertaking not to interfere with witnesses in the case. In addition the court required the accused to show how they will be sustaining themselves in terms of subsistence.
4. I confirmed from the record that each accused complied with my directions to file affidavits showing their place of abode, whereby each has indicated the estate in which they reside with their spouses and or children. They have shown how they will earn their daily bread and fend for their families. They have also confirmed their commitment not to interfere with witnesses.
5. The accused have a right to be released on bail pending the trial unless there are compelling reasons. None have been alleged, the prosecution have gone a step further and indicated they will not be opposing bail.
6. The Constitution under Article 49(1) (h) makes it clear that the bond terms should be reasonable. The Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines elaborates that what is reasonable should be accessed by the court (or police if it’s pre-charging) having regard to various factors.
7. In this case, I have considered accused personal means as spelt out in their affidavits. I note that most of them are people of humble background and humble means. What is reasonable will therefore be gauged pegged on their personal circumstances as declared by themselves.
8. In the result I grant each of the accused bail on the following terms:
a) Each accused may be released on cash bail of KShs.100,000/=.
b) In the alternative each accused may be released on a bond of KShs.250,000/= with one surety of like sum.
c) In addition to the above each accused is warned to stand by their undertakings contained in their individual affidavits including:
(i) That they will not interfere with any potential witnesses or witnesses in this case.
(ii) That they will not leave the court’s jurisdiction without the express leave of the court.
(iii) That the Accused should avail themselves for their trial as and when required.
9. The accused are warned that breach of any of the terms in 8(c) above may result in cancelation or other variation of their bond terms including enhancement of terms.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE