[2015] KEHC 134 (KLR)
The court found that, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, specifically the relationship between the accused and the civilian witnesses who are yet to testify, releasing the applicants on bail at this stage would pose a real risk of interference with witnesses and jeopardize the prosecution's case. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 134 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Teresia Mueni Kilonzo; Applicant: Wycliff Okweba Onchiri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 32 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application for bail refused
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Flight Risk, Witness Interference
- 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
Teresia Mueni Kilonzo
Applicant
Wycliff Okweba Onchiri
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending hearing and determination of the criminal case.
- 2 Whether there is a real risk of interference with prosecution witnesses if bail is granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, specifically the relationship between the accused and the civilian witnesses who are yet to testify, releasing the applicants on bail at this stage would pose a real risk of interference with witnesses and jeopardize the prosecution's case. The court therefore refused the application for bail at this stage but allowed the applicants the liberty to renew their application once the civilian witnesses have completed giving evidence.
Court Disposition
application for bail refused
Orders
- The application for bail is refused at this stage.
- The applicants may renew the application after the civilian witnesses have testified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 32 OF 2015
REPUBLIC...................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
TERESIA MUENI KILONZO........................1ST ACCUSED
WYCLIFF OKWEBA ONCHIRI....................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2015, pursuant to the provisions of Section 356 and 357 of the Criminal Procedure code [Cap 75] of Laws of Kenya, Article 49 and 50 of the constitution and all the enabling provisions of the law, the applicant seeks orders:-
THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to grant and or admit the applicants to bail pending hearing and determination of the Criminal Case herein.
THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to grant other Orders as it deems fit and just.
The application is based on the grounds”-
THAT the applicants are citizens of Kenya, have fixed abodes, and are not flight risk.
THAT the applicants have never and have no intention of interfering with the witnesses in this matter.
THAT the applicants are ready to even report to the nearest police station as will be directed by the Honourable Court.
THAT the applicants are ready to comply with any condition given by this court if granted bail.
The application is predicated upon the affidavit of Teresia Mueni Kilonzo sworn on the 26th day of March 2015.
On behalf of the first applicant it was urged that she is a Kenyan citizen and hence not a flight risk.
That she has no intention of interfering with witnesses and is ready and willing to abide by any condition if granted bail.
On behalf of the second applicant it was urged that he is a Kenya citizen and hence not a flight risk.
That he has no intention of interfering with witnesses and is willing to abide by any condition if granted bail.
The prosecution relied on the affidavit of P.C Newton Limula sworn on the 21st day of July, 2015.
On behalf of the respondent/states, it was urged that the civilian witnesses, who were at the scene, are friends of the accused. Hence there is real possibility of interference with witnesses in the event the accused is released on bail.
That in that event, if the court is inclined to grant the accused persons bail. It should be after the civilian witnesses have completed giving evidence. Mention on 13/10/2015.
I have anxiously weighed the rivaling arguments. Having done so, I am of the persuasion that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, releasing the applicants on bond or bail at this stage would jeopardize the prosecution's case.
Accordingly the application if refused. However, the applicants are at liberty to renew the application once the civilian witnesses have completed giving evidence.
Dated and delivered at Nairobithis 29th day of September 2015.
N. R. O. OMBIJA
JUDGE