[2015] KEHC 4429 (KLR)
The court found that the accused persons have a constitutional right to bail unless compelling reasons are shown to deny it. The pre-bail reports indicated strong family ties and community support, with only two uncles of the 1st accused expressing unspecified reservations. The court held that these reservations did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4429 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Robert Muigai Kimani; Defendant: Samuel Chege Wairimu; Defendant: Joseph Njogu Thabai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case Case10 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- bail granted
- Judges
- AM Cockar
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Murder Charge, Compelling Reasons, Flight Risk, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Robert Muigai Kimani
Defendant
Samuel Chege Wairimu
Defendant
Joseph Njogu Thabai
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons are entitled to bail pending trial under the Constitution of Kenya.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the accused persons bail.
- 3 Whether the accused persons are flight risks or likely to interfere with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused persons have a constitutional right to bail unless compelling reasons are shown to deny it. The pre-bail reports indicated strong family ties and community support, with only two uncles of the 1st accused expressing unspecified reservations. The court held that these reservations did not amount to compelling reasons, especially as the uncles did not provide details and lived far from where the accused intended to reside. There was no evidence of flight risk or likelihood of interference with witnesses. Therefore, the court granted bail on reasonable terms, emphasizing the accused must not interfere with witnesses, failing which the bond would be cancelled.
Court Disposition
bail granted
Orders
- Each accused may be released on a cash bail of KShs.250,000.
- Alternatively, each accused may be released on bond of KShs.1,000,000 with two sureties of KShs.500,000 each.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASENO.10 OF 2015
REPUBLIC………….…..…….…….............……...................……...PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS -
ROBERT MUIGAI KIMANI...................................................................1STACCUSED
SAMUEL CHEGE WAIRIMU……………………..............…………2ND ACCUSED
JOSEPH NJOGU THABAI…………….……………............………3RD ACCUSED
RULING
The accused persons face a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The accused persons have each filed an application seeking bail pending trial in the Notice of Motion applications dated 26th March, 2015. The grounds for the applications are on the face of the applications and are all similar, namely:
That the offence is bailable under the Constitution of Kenya and the applicants have a constitutional right to bail on reasonable conditions and terms pending trial and determination of the case.
That the applicants are ready and willing to abide by any and all bail terms and condition the honourable court will grant.
That the applicants are ready and willing to attend court, police station, criminal investigation department, or any other place and comply with any requirement or conditions that the court may impose.
That the applicants are not flight risks and shall faithfully attend this honourable court for the trial to the end.
That there are no compelling reasons why they should not be admitted to bail awaiting trial.
That the applicants will not in any way interfere with investigations, witnesses or the prosecution of this trial if released on bond or bail.
The applications are each supported by affidavits sworn by the accused persons. The gist of the affidavits is that the applicants have a fixed abode and are therefore not a flight risk.
The State has not opposed the application.
The court asked for Pre Bail reports on the accused persons and these were filed on 4th May, 2015. I have perused the reports. For each accused person the Probation Officer has shown that the accused have family ties whereby the parents are shown to have committed themselves to live with their children (accused) and to support them to secure the bond if the court grants their application. There is a strong indication that the community does not oppose their release except for two uncles of the 1st accused.
Regarding the uncles the Probation Officer indicated that they merely expressed their reservations for the release of the accused persons. However they did not give any reasons for their reservations. I have considered that no details why the two uncles oppose accused release on bond has been demonstrated. The court cannot act without any good reasons shown. I have also considered the fact that the two uncles live in Nairobi, which is far from where the accused persons have said that they intend to live. I am satisfied that none of them stand to suffer any prejudice. After all no compelling reason has been given that would drive this court to deny the accused persons bail.
Having considered this application, I find that the accused should be granted bail on reasonable terms. The application is therefore granted on the following terms and conditions.
Each accused may be released on a cash bail of KShs.250,000/=.
In the alternative the accused may be released on bond of KShs.1 million each with two sureties of KShs.500,000/= each.
The accused should not interfere with the witnesses in this case in anyway as this will result in the bond being cancelled.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE