[1998] KEHC 271 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and building regulation offences following the collapse of a building he owned, the evidence suggested that the criminal liability for manslaughter was questionable and the conviction on those counts may be overturned on appeal. The court noted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 271 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Simon Mwangi Kirika; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 456 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for bail pending appeal allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Manslaughter, Building Regulations Offences, Sentencing Guidelines
- 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
Simon Mwangi Kirika
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending appeal.
- 2 Whether there are exceptional or unusual circumstances justifying bail.
- 3 Whether the conviction for manslaughter was proper given the facts and law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and building regulation offences following the collapse of a building he owned, the evidence suggested that the criminal liability for manslaughter was questionable and the conviction on those counts may be overturned on appeal. The court noted that the dividing line between civil and criminal liability in such cases is technical, and the applicant's conduct, though irresponsible, may not meet the threshold for criminal liability. The trial magistrate's extraneous comments may have influenced the sentence, making it likely that the sentence would be disturbed on appeal. Given these factors, the court held that there...
Court Disposition
Application for bail pending appeal allowed.
Orders
- The applicant may be released on executing a bond of KES 500,000 with one surety in the like sum.
- The applicant must attend the hearing of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 456 OF 1998
SIMON MWANGI KIRIKA................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant was convicted of two counts of manslaughtre c/s 202 as read with sec.205 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 3(three) years imprisonment on each count.
He was also convicted of 4 offences under Legal Notice No. 256 of 1963 relating to erection, occupation, inspection and construction of a building. On each of those charges he was fined kshs.2,000/- in default to serve three(3) months imprisonment
Being aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences, the applicant has filed an appeal. There is now before me an application under section 35791) of the Criminal Procedure Code for an order that the applicant be admitted to bail pending the hearing of he said appeal.
Bail pending appeal may only be granted if there are exceptional or unusual circumstances. _ see Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1983 Michael Otieno Ademba -v- Republic.
However, the most important ground is that the appeal has an overwhelming chance of being successful; in that case there is no justification for depriving the applicant of his freedom. See Somo -v- Republic (1972) E.A. 476.
Both learned counsel have addressed me on the issues involved. I have also gone through the record.
The applicant was the owner of a building that collapsed killing two people. There was sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution that the collapse thereof was due to structural failure. The contributing factors were poor construction, poor concrete, poor foundation and overloading.
The applicant did not seek professional guidance in the construction of the subject building. Structural specification were not complied with. To say the least he was irresponsible. The bottomline is that the building was an illegal structure. The learned trial magistrate was right in his appreciation of the law and he was also right to conclude that the applicant committed these offences, in particular, manslaughter, on technical grounds. And this is where the real issue arises. Where does civil liability stop and criminal liability set in? The dividing line to use the word used by the learned trial magistrate is “technical”/
At the end of it all the applicant may not escape civil liability but with respect, I find it difficult to impose or rather read criminal liability in what took place. Thus conviction on the two courts of manslaughter, may be overturned but not on the other remaining counts.
The other point in relation to section 211 of the Criminal procedure Code does not arise. The learned trial magistrate, as far as the record can show complied with the same and no prejudice has been said to have befallen the applicant.
On the issue of sentence, it is true that the learned trial magistrate made extrenous comments which may have influenced the sentence. Without talking for the appellate court that shall hear the appeal, the said sentence on the first two counts is most likely to be disturbed.
In the end I find that the application succeeds. The applicant may be released on executing a bond of kshs. 500,000/- with one surety I the like sum.. He must attend the hearing of the appeal.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 12th November, 1998
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE