[2015] KEHC 5880 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, being husband and wife from the same family, demonstrated sufficient cause for the variation of bond terms as they could not secure separate sureties and intended to use the same property as security. There being no objection from the state and no compelling reason to refuse the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5880 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Ronald Nyairo; Applicant: Roselyne Karambu; Applicant: David Njuguna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 53 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bond Variation Application
- Outcome
- application for variation of bond terms allowed
- Legal Topics
- Bond Terms, Bail Variation, Surety Requirements
- 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
Ronald Nyairo
Applicant
Roselyne Karambu
Applicant
David Njuguna
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bond Variation Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond terms for the 2nd and 3rd accused persons should be varied to allow them to jointly post one surety for both.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the application for variation of bond terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, being husband and wife from the same family, demonstrated sufficient cause for the variation of bond terms as they could not secure separate sureties and intended to use the same property as security. There being no objection from the state and no compelling reason to refuse the application, the court exercised its discretion to vary the bond terms, allowing the 2nd and 3rd accused to jointly post a bond of one million Kenya shillings with one surety of the same amount. The court emphasized that all other bond conditions remain in force, including non-contact with prosecution witnesses, mandatory court attendance, and monthly appearances before the...
Court Disposition
application for variation of bond terms allowed
Orders
- The bond terms for the 2nd and 3rd accused are varied to allow both to jointly post a bond of KES 1,000,000 with one surety of the same amount.
- All other bond conditions remain in force, including non-contact with prosecution witnesses, mandatory court attendance, and monthly appearances before the Deputy Registrar.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 53 OF 2014
REPUBLIC…………………………………PROSECUTOR/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
RONALD NYAIRO……………………….1ST ACCUSED/1ST APPLICANT
ROSELYNE KARAMBU……………….2ND ACCUSED/2ND APPLICANT
DAVID NJUGUNA……………………..3RD ACCUSED/3RD APPLICANT
RULING
The three accused persons were each released on bond of Kenya shillings one million (Kshs. 1,000,000) with one surety on 17th February 2015. The 2nd and 3rd accused persons who are said to be man and wife have now moved this court to review the bond terms and allow both to present one surety. They have told the court through their counsel Mr. Njuguna that they are not able to secure one surety for each of them since they come from the same family and that they will be using the same property as security. The state did not object to this application.
I have considered the matter and there being no compelling reason to decline granting this application, I hereby vary the terms of bond in respect of the 2nd and the 3rd accused persons to allow both of them to jointly post a bond of one million Kenya shillings with one surety of the same amount. They are reminded that the rest of the terms of the bond remain, that is to say that they shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses before they have testified in court; they shall attend court whenever required to do so without fail and they shall also present themselves before the Deputy Registrar of this court every month for mention of their case until the hearing and determination of the case or until further orders of this court. Orders are made accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered this 10th March 2015.
S. N. MUTUKU
JUDGE