[2019] KEHC 626 (KLR)
The court found that the circumstances surrounding the accused's bail application had not changed since the previous ruling by Justice Wakiaga, which denied bail based on the same affidavits and facts. No witnesses related to or neighbours of the accused had testified since the last ruling, and the defence did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 626 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Stephen Otieno
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 22 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FM Mutuku
- Legal Topics
- Bail Application, Compelling Reasons, Witness Protection, Pretrial Detention
- 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
Applicant
Stephen Otieno
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be granted bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has demonstrated compelling reasons to deny bail to the accused.
- 3 Whether the application for bail is res judicata given the previous ruling on the same affidavits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the circumstances surrounding the accused's bail application had not changed since the previous ruling by Justice Wakiaga, which denied bail based on the same affidavits and facts. No witnesses related to or neighbours of the accused had testified since the last ruling, and the defence did not present new material facts or circumstances. The court held that the renewed application was misconceived and an abuse of process, and therefore dismissed it, ordering that the accused remain in custody as previously directed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail is dismissed.
- The accused shall remain in custody as previously ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 OF 2018
REPUBLIC.................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STEPHEN OTIENO...........................................................................ACCUSED
RULING
Stephen Otieno, the accused herein, is charged with the murder of Tamara Deborah alias Njoki contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The offence is alleged to have been committed between 18th and 26th August 2017 at an unknown time at Riruta Satellite in Dagoretti Sub-County within Nairobi County. The accused denied committing this offence.
This is an application for bond/bail. Mr. Wakaba, basing his arguments on the Replying Affidavit by the accused dated 17th October 2018, submitted that the circumstances under which the alleged offence was committed have not been proved in court and remain mere allegation and that from the time the affidavit and supplementary affidavit were filed to date, the prosecution has had adequate time to investigate the allegations of threats to the witnesses but they have not done so. Mr. Wakaba submitted that the existence of relationship between the accused and some witnesses is not a bar to admit the accused to bond/bail unless there is evidence that accused’s release will affect the witnesses. It was submitted that the accused is willing to re-locate from where he used to reside to his rural home in Kisumu. It was submitted that the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving compelling reasons and that the annexures to the affidavits have not been subjected to cross-examination to determine their veracity. It was submitted that the accused will abide by the terms and conditions of bail set by this court. Mr. Wakaba urged that this court sets affordable conditions because the accused comes from humble background.
The application was opposed by the prosecution. The grounds in opposition are contained in the affidavit of PC Edward Onyango dated 13th June 2018 and the supplementary affidavit by the same officer dated 13th August 13th August 2018. I have read the affidavits under reference. They contain averments in respect of the circumstances under which the alleged offence was committed and the arrest of the accused. They also contain averments in respect to threats by the accused to the mother of the deceased and other relatives. It is deposed that the accused has been making these threats even when he is in custody.
I have read the court file. What did not come out clearly during these proceedings is that a bail application based on the same affidavits by the prosecution and the Replying Affidavit by the accused was canvassed before Hon. Justice Wakiaga and a ruling to that application was delivered on 1st November 2018. The court declined to allow the application in essence denying the accused bail/bond. Paragraph 13 of the Ruling states as follows:
“The accused shall remain in custody but is at liberty to renew his bail application once all witnesses related to him or were his neighbours have testified and it is so ordered.”
My perusal of the court file discloses that this matter is still fresh and no witness has testified. It was allocated to this court on 23rd July 2019 and was first mentioned in this court (Court No. 4) on 5th July 2019. This means that the situation remains as it was as at the time Justice Wakiaga delivered his decision of the bail application. I do not understand why the defence did not bring it to the courts attention that the matter is coming back to court as an application for review of the earlier application. Without taking much time on the matter, it is my finding and I so hold that the application is misconceived and an abuse of the court’s process. It is hereby dismissed. As ordered by Justice Wakiaga the accused shall remain in custody. Orders shall issue accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered this 10th day of December 2019.
S. N. Mutuku
Judge