[2013] KEHC 4602 (KLR)
The court found that, despite the constitutional right to bail, the circumstances of the case—namely, the seriousness of the offence (murder), the involvement of a firearm, the coordinated nature of the crime, and the fact that the 1st accused is suspected to be the mastermind—constitute compelling reasons to deny...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4602 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Republic; Respondent: Stanely Mutuma M’Imana; Respondent: Gitonga Mathayo alias G. K. Mutisia; Respondent: Samson Michubu Kanyana; Respondent: Charels Ntonga M’Nthaka; Respondent: Joseph Gitonga alias Kato; Respondent: Lawi Kamenchu M’Nthaka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 69 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- bail application dismissed
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Right to Bond, Pretrial Detention, Murder Charges
- 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
Appellant
Stanely Mutuma M’Imana
Respondent
Gitonga Mathayo alias G. K. Mutisia
Respondent
Samson Michubu Kanyana
Respondent
Charels Ntonga M’Nthaka
Respondent
Joseph Gitonga alias Kato
Respondent
Lawi Kamenchu M’Nthaka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons should be released on bond or bail pending trial.
- 2 Whether the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances justify denial of bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, despite the constitutional right to bail, the circumstances of the case—namely, the seriousness of the offence (murder), the involvement of a firearm, the coordinated nature of the crime, and the fact that the 1st accused is suspected to be the mastermind—constitute compelling reasons to deny bail to all accused persons. The court rejected the Probation Officer’s recommendation to release only the 1st accused, reasoning that if the alleged mastermind is denied bail, so too should the co-accused. The court concluded that releasing the accused would not serve the interests of justice, especially given the recent and traumatic nature of the incident for the deceased’s...
Court Disposition
bail application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail by all accused persons is dismissed.
- All accused persons to remain in custody pending trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 69 of 2012 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
STANELY MUTUMA M’IMANA
GITONGA MATHAYO ALIAS G. K. MUTISIA
SAMSON MICHUBU KANYANA
CHARELS NTONGA M’NTHAKA
JOSEPH GITONGA ALIAS KATO
LAWI KAMENCHU M’NTHAKA…………………………………….. RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The accused persons have all applied to be released on bond or bail pending the hearing and determination of their case.
Mr. Kijaro urged the application on behalf of the 1st and 2nd and 4th accused before Hon. Apondi, J. Counsel stated that the application was brought under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution. He relied on the 1st accused affidavit.
Mr. Otieno urged the application on behalf of the 3rd, 5th and 6th accused. He urged that the three accused persons were young people with families and that they needed to contribute to their welfare.Both counsels urged that the accused persons had pledged to attend court once granted bail.
I have considered the affidavit sworn by the 1st Accused on his behalf and that of the 2nd and 4th accused.
Mr. Motende for the State did not have any contributions to make to the application on the State’s side. He urged the court to consider the Probation Officer’s Reports instead.
I have considered the Probation Officers Pre-bail Reports on all six accused. Looking at the Reports holistically there is clear proof that the 1st accused is brother of the deceased and is suspected to be the master mind of the incident. The rest of the accused are suspected to have been hired. I know that at this stage all the accused should be considered innocent until proved guilty. The Probation Officer seemed to recommend the release of the 1st accused but not that of all his co-accused. I see no reasonable explanation or logic for that. This is so especially considering that the person suspected to be the mastermind and the incident involved a firearm and the fact the murder was well co-ordinated and involved several people. Given these circumstances none of the accused persons would be eligible for bond and in that case especially the 1st accused. The serious circumstances of the case are sufficient and strong reasons to deny bail to the accused.
The incident occurred quite recently. The same is still very fresh in the minds of the immediate family of the deceased.
It is my view after considering this application that it will not be in the interest of justice to release the accused persons on bond.
I decline to grant their bail. Accordingly I dismiss the application altogether.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]