[2014] KEHC 1073 (KLR)
The court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence to support the assertion that the accused would interfere with witnesses if released on bail. The mere fact that the accused resides in the same locality as the witnesses does not, without more, amount to a compelling reason to deny bail. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1073 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Stanley Kariuki Walugoro alias Karish
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 24 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
- Outcome
- bail_granted_with_conditions
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference, Presumption of Innocence
- Source Language
- english
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
Stanley Kariuki Walugoro alias Karish
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has established compelling reasons to deny bail, specifically the risk of interference with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence to support the assertion that the accused would interfere with witnesses if released on bail. The mere fact that the accused resides in the same locality as the witnesses does not, without more, amount to a compelling reason to deny bail. The court emphasized that each case must be considered on its own circumstances and that the presumption of innocence applies until proven guilty. As no compelling reason was established, the accused was entitled to bail pending trial, subject to strict conditions to ensure attendance and prevent contact with witnesses.
Court Disposition
bail_granted_with_conditions
Orders
- The accused shall be released on bail pending trial upon posting a bond of Kshs. 1,000,000 with one surety of the same amount.
- The accused shall not contact or communicate with prosecution witnesses during the pendency of the trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OFKENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.24 OF 2014
REPUBLIC................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STANLEY KARIUKI WALUGOROaliasKARISH...........ACCUSED
RULING
The Accused, Stanley Kariuki Walugoro alias Karish is charged with Murdercontrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. According to the information, the particulars of the offence are that on 28th March 2014 at Mukuru Kwa Njenga Village, the Accused murdered Joseph Mutiso Mutuku. When the Accused was arraigned before this court, he pleaded not guilty to the charge. He has made an application to be released on bail pending trial. He states that he is a person of fixed abode and is not a flight risk. He has no intention of interfering with witnesses and was willing to abide by any terms the court may impose as a condition for his release on bail. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of the Accused. The application is opposed. PC Mithamo, the investigating officer, swore a replying affidavit in opposition to the application. He stated that there were compelling reasons why the Accused should not be released on bail. He stated that the Accused knew most of the witnesses because they were his neighbours. He was likely to interfere with them. He urged the court to disallow the application.
During the hearing of the application, this court heard oral rival submission made by Mr. Nyaberi for the Accused and by Ms. Maari for the State. Learned counsel essentially reiterated the contents of the application and the replying affidavit.Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution grants any person charged with a criminal offence the right to be released on bail pending trial unless there are compelling reasons to make the court reach a contrary finding. What constitutes “compelling reasons” has not been defined by the Constitution. However, from several decisions that have been rendered by the various courts since the promulgation of the Constitution, compelling reasons include: the likelihood that the Accused will fail to attend court during trial, the possibility that the Accused may interfere with witnesses, if the life of the Accused person or any of the witnesses shall be endangered in case the Accused is released on bail, and where it is alleged that the Accused person may likely commit an offence if he is released on bail. These reasons are not exhaustive. However, the court will consider the circumstances of each case, and the interest of justice, taking into consideration that an Accused person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty by lawfully established court.
In the present application, the prosecution opposed the application on the ground that the Accused will interfere with the prosecution witnesses. It is the prosecution’s case that the said witnesses, being neighbours of the Accused, will likely be negatively influenced by the Accused if he is released on bail. On his part, the Accused has stated that he would not interfere with the witnesses if he is released on bail pending trial. This court is of the view that the fact that the Accused lives in the same locality as the witnesses does not automatically translate to the assumption that the Accused will interfere with the said witnesses. The prosecution did not present cogent evidence to support their assertion that the Accused will likely interfere with the prosecution witnesses if he is released on bail pending trial. The prosecution has not established a compelling reason for this court not to release the Accused on bail pending trial.
In the premises therefore, the Accused shall be released on bail pending trial on condition that he posts a bond of Kshs.1 million with one surety of the same amount. The Accused shall be required to attend court without fail. During the pendency of the trial, he shall not contact or communicate with the prosecution witnesses. He shall be required to attend court before the Deputy Registrar of this court once every month until the hearing of the case or until further orders of the court. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
L. KIMARU
JUDGE