[2012] KEHC 1234 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 1234 (KLR)

The court found that the affidavit relied upon by the prosecution did not specifically identify the 3rd Accused, Alexander Kiprotich Ngetich, as the person who threatened the deponent. There was no evidence submitted by the State to show that Criminal Case No. 33 of 2011 involved or concerned the 3rd Accused....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 1234 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Sammy Kiprotich Kirwa; Defendant: Alfred Kiptogom Mitei; Defendant: Alexander Kiprotich Ngetich
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Application 49 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Oral Application for Cancellation of Bail
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail Cancellation, Witness Interference, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Bail Cancellation Witness Interference Affidavit Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Sammy Kiprotich Kirwa

Defendant

Alfred Kiptogom Mitei

Defendant

Alexander Kiprotich Ngetich

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Ruling on Oral Application for Cancellation of Bail

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd Accused, Alexander Kiprotich Ngetich, interfered with or intimidated witnesses in breach of his bail terms.
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit relied upon by the prosecution sufficiently identified the 3rd Accused as the person who threatened the deponent.
  3. 3 Whether there was any evidence linking the 3rd Accused to Criminal Case No. 33 of 2011.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the affidavit relied upon by the prosecution did not specifically identify the 3rd Accused, Alexander Kiprotich Ngetich, as the person who threatened the deponent. There was no evidence submitted by the State to show that Criminal Case No. 33 of 2011 involved or concerned the 3rd Accused. Furthermore, the names of the parties allegedly involved in the incident were not provided in the affidavit. The court also noted that the alleged incident occurred before the 3rd Accused was admitted to bail, and the court that granted bail had found no compelling reasons to deny him his constitutional right. Consequently, the court held that there was no basis to interfere with or...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for cancellation of the 3rd Accused's bail is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.