[2025] KEHC 8570 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court's failure to provide a cash bail alternative, despite no objection from the prosecution and the applicant's status as a civil servant, was not justified. The court emphasized that bail terms must be reasonable and not excessive, as excessive terms effectively deny the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 8570 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ben Shapaya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 2025
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E079 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond Terms
- Outcome
- application for review of bond terms allowed in part
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Cheating Offence, Judicial Discretion in Bail, Reasonableness of Bail Terms
- 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
Ben Shapaya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond terms imposed by the trial court were excessive and amounted to a denial of bail.
- 2 Whether the applicant should be granted an alternative of cash bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court's failure to provide a cash bail alternative, despite no objection from the prosecution and the applicant's status as a civil servant, was not justified. The court emphasized that bail terms must be reasonable and not excessive, as excessive terms effectively deny the constitutional right to bail. The court took judicial notice of the delays inherent in surety verification and found no compelling reason to exclude cash bail. Consequently, the applicant was found to qualify for a cash bail alternative, and the bond terms were reviewed accordingly.
Court Disposition
application for review of bond terms allowed in part
Orders
- In addition to the bond of Kshs. 500,000 with one surety, the applicant is granted an alternative of cash bail in the sum of Kshs. 200,000 with one contact person.
- The applicant is at liberty to apply for further review of bond terms before the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Shapaya v Republic (Criminal Revision E079 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 8570 (KLR) (18 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8570 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision E079 of 2025
DR Kavedza, J
June 18, 2025
Between
Ben Shapaya
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Before the subordinate court, the applicant is facing a charge of cheating contrary to section 315 of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and was admitted to bond of Kshs. 500,000 with a surety of a similar amount. Vide an application dated 18th June 2025, he sought review of the bond terms imposed.
2. The grounds raised in support of the application are that the applicant is a Doctor at Coast Teaching and Referral Hospital. The trial court has failed to grant the option of a cash bail. Bond terms imposed involve long verification process. This will hinder his ability to discharge essential duties as a health practitioner and affect his availability at work. Further, no compelling reasons were furnished by the prosecution to justify the lack of an alternative to a bond. The applicant is willing to abide by the terms of bail set by the court. He prayed for the grant of cash bail.
3. I have considered the application, the arguments made in support of the application, and the applicable law. For consideration is whether the orders sought should be reviewed.
4. In granting bail, the court must ensure that terms are not excessive, as this amounts to a denial of bail, a right protected under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, as affirmed in Taiko Kitende Muinya [2010] eKLR. As noted in the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines (p. 9, para. 3. 1(d)), bail must be reasonable, neither so high as to be oppressive nor so low as to encourage an accused to abscond. Reasonableness is assessed on a case-by-case basis, as held in Andrew Young Otieno v Republic [2017] eKLR.
5. In this matter, the court initially admitted the applicant to bond in the sum of Kshs. 500,000 with one surety of similar amount. This implied that the applicant was deemed capable of meeting the terms. It is trite that the primary purpose of bail or bond is to secure the accused’s attendance in court during trial.
6. Upon reviewing the record, there was no objection by the prosecution to the grant of bail or bond. The applicant is a civil servant based in Mombasa. In addition, this court takes judicial notice that the verification of documents take time. Further, there was no indication from the record why cash bail was excluded as an option under the circumstances.
7. Having considered the nature of the charge and the averments on record, I find that the applicant qualifies for the grant of a cash bail. Accordingly, I hereby issue the following orders:i.In addition to the trial court’s order admitting the applicant, Ben Shapaya, to bond of Kshs. 500,000 with one surety of a similar amount, the applicant is granted an alternative of cash bail in the sum of Kshs. 200,000 with one contact person.ii.The applicant is at liberty to apply for further review of bond terms before the trial court.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE