[2020] KEHC 7166 (KLR)
The court found that there were serious and compelling reasons to deny bail to all accused persons. The 1st accused was determined to be a flight risk due to lack of a fixed abode, as confirmed by his own family and the probation officer. There was significant community hostility and palpable anger in the village...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7166 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Rufus Ndirangu alias Kenyatta; Applicant: George Muhoho Karanja; Applicant: Henry Mwaura Mukuru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 25 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- bail denied
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Presumption of Innocence, Flight Risk
- 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
Rufus Ndirangu alias Kenyatta
Applicant
George Muhoho Karanja
Applicant
Henry Mwaura Mukuru
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
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 Whether the security and safety of the accused and the views of the victims' family justify denial of bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were serious and compelling reasons to deny bail to all accused persons. The 1st accused was determined to be a flight risk due to lack of a fixed abode, as confirmed by his own family and the probation officer. There was significant community hostility and palpable anger in the village following the alleged murders, raising concerns for the safety of the accused if released. The family of the deceased and local administration expressed apprehension about the security of the accused, and the 2nd accused himself feared for his life if he returned to the locality. The court concluded that these factors, taken together, constituted compelling reasons under Article...
Court Disposition
bail denied
Orders
- Bail is refused for all the accused persons.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25 OF 2019
REPUBLIC...........................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
RUFUS NDIRANGU alias KENYATTA.............................1ST ACCUSED
GEORGE MUHOHO KARANJA......................................2ND ACCUSED
HENRY MWAURA MUKURU...........................................3RD ACCUSED
RULING
1. The three accused persons pray for bail pending trial.
2. Their learned counsel, Mr. Gioche, submitted that notwithstanding the charge, the accused enjoy the presumption of innocence. He challenged the conclusions by the Probation Officer that the 1st accused was a flight risk; or, that the security of all the accused would be in jeopardy. In a synopsis, he opined that there are no compelling reasons for denial of bail.
3. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application on the basis of the findings in each of the three pre-bail reports dated 18th February 2020.
4. The overarching objective of bail is to ensure the accused attends trial. See Muraguri v Republic [1989] KLR 181, Republic v Elias Kipkemoi, Eldoret High Court Criminal Case 42 of 2014 (unreported).
5. It is a truism that the accused is presumed innocent. Under Articles 49 (1) (h) and 50 of the Constitution, an accused person is entitled to bail unless there are compelling circumstances.
6. Other relevant matters to be considered by the court include: the nature of the charge; the likely sentence; previous criminal records; the views of the family of the victim; the possibility of interference with witnesses; the temptation to abscond; and, the safety of the accused.
7. The Victims Protection Act 2014 also requires that the views of victim’s family be considered at this stage.
8. Each of the accused faces two grave counts of murder. The Director of Public Prosecutions informs the High Court that on the night of 21st September 2019 at Waitua village, Kandara Sub-County within Murang’a County they jointly with others not before the court murdered Margaret Nyambura Ndung’u. The second count states that on the same date and place, they jointly with others not before the court murdered Benson Muhungi Ndung’u.
9. From the three pre-bail reports, I find that all the accused are ineligible for bail. With regard to the 1st accused, his own family members acknowledged that he has no fixed abode. The probation officer concluded that he was a flight-risk.
10. It is clear that there is palpable anger in the village. The family of the two deceased persons is tormented by the loss of their relatives. The local administration is apprehensive that the security of all the three accused persons would not be guaranteed either. In particular, the 2nd accused is hesitant to return to the locus in quo as he fears for his life.
11. All those are serious and compelling reasons for denial of bail. The upshot is that bail is refused for all the accused.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 26th day of March 2020.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in chambers in the presence of-
All the accused absent in line with NCAJ’s Covid-19 pandemic guidelines of 15/3/2020.
No appearance by counsel for the accused.
No appearance by counsel for the Republic.
Ms. Dorcas, Court Assistant.