[2017] KEHC 9540 (KLR)
The court found that while the bond terms were not excessive per se, the prosecution's failure to procure witnesses in a timely manner amounted to a lack of diligence, resulting in prolonged pretrial detention of the applicant. It is unjust to continue holding an accused in custody where the prosecution is not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9540 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Muriithi Mbaabu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 244 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- Bond terms reduced.
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Pretrial Detention, Prosecutorial Delay
- 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
Samuel Muriithi Mbaabu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond terms granted to the applicant were excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether continued detention of the applicant is justified given the prosecution's delay in procuring witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the bond terms were not excessive per se, the prosecution's failure to procure witnesses in a timely manner amounted to a lack of diligence, resulting in prolonged pretrial detention of the applicant. It is unjust to continue holding an accused in custody where the prosecution is not making sufficient efforts to progress the case. Therefore, the bond terms should be reduced to ensure the applicant's right to reasonable bail is upheld.
Court Disposition
Bond terms reduced.
Orders
- The applicant shall deposit a surety bond of Kshs. 1,000,000 or pay a cash bail of Kshs. 500,000.
- The surety shall be assessed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC. CR. APP. NO. 244 OF 2017
SAMUEL MURIITHI MBAABU..……….......………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………………….…..…RESPONDENT
RULING
I have considered the application and the submissions. For all purposes, the terms of bond granted cannot be deemed as excessive. However, it cannot be explained why the prosecution for a period of over one year, have only procured two witnesses yet 13 witnesses are lined up to testify. That explains laxity of the investigators and prosecution to conclude the trial on time.
It is a cardinal principle that in as much as bond should be reasonable, it makes no sense to grant bond that cannot be met by an accused. In the circumstances, where it is demonstrated that the prosecution is not doing enough to procure their witnesses, it becomes an injustice to continue to keep an accused in custody. For this reason, I will reduce the bond terms. The Applicant shall deposit a surety bond of Kshs. 1,000,000 /= or pay a cash bail of Kshs. 500,000/=. The surety shall be assessed by the trial court.
DATED and DELIVERED this 2nd day of October, 2017.
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE