[2008] KEHC 1548 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants did not demonstrate overwhelming chances of success in their appeal, only that they had an arguable appeal. The court further held that the fact that the appellants are husband and wife does not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending appeal. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1548 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tarasila Wambui Gichovi; Appellant: Patrick Gichovi Nyaga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 93 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for bail pending appeal dismissed
- Judges
- J Karanja
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Sentencing, Exceptional Circumstances, Breach of Peace
- 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
Tarasila Wambui Gichovi
Appellant
Patrick Gichovi Nyaga
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants should be granted bail pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the fact that the appellants are husband and wife constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying bail.
- 3 Whether the appeal has overwhelming chances of success.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants did not demonstrate overwhelming chances of success in their appeal, only that they had an arguable appeal. The court further held that the fact that the appellants are husband and wife does not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending appeal. The trial magistrate had already considered their relationship in mitigation, which influenced the imposition of a fine as an option. The court concluded that there was no convincing reason to release the appellants on bail pending appeal and dismissed the application.
Court Disposition
application for bail pending appeal dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Criminal Appeal 93 of 2008 & 94 of 2008
TARASILA WAMBUI GICHOVI…………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………..……………………….RESPONDENT
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2008
PATRICK GICHOVI NYAGA……….…………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………RESPONDENT
(CONSOLIDATED)
RULING
This ruling is in respect of Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2008 and No. 93 of 2008. The appellants in both files were tried and convicted in the same file i.e Embu CM. CC.No.691 of 2005. They were each fined Ksh.60,000/= with a default sentence of 2 years imprisonment and a further 3 months imprisonment for the offence of creating a disturbance in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace. They are serving that sentence. They have nonetheless filed appeals which have yet to be admitted. Two main grounds were advanced in support of the application:-
1. That the appellants’ appeal has chances of success; and
2. That there are exceptional circumstances in this matter because the appellants are man and wife.
There is the ground on the face of the application also that the appellants will have served a substantial part of the sentence before the appeal is heard and determined. I have considered the submissions by counsel for the state and counsel for the appellants. I have also been informed by the authorities furnished to me by consent. As far as the first ground is concerned, I wish to state that I have gone through the record of the trial court and considered the same carefully. I cannot say that the appellants’ appeal has overwhelming chances of success. All I can say is that they have an arguable appeal.
On the ground of exceptional grounds, I must say that the fact that the two are husband and wife per se does not amount to exceptional circumstances. It is first an unfortunate state of affairs. The learned trial Magistrate did consider that fact in their mitigation and that could be the reason why they were given an option of a fine. My deduction is that they do not want to pay the fine because the Magistrate ordered that if the fine is paid, then Ksh.30,000/= should be given to the complainant as compensation.
My view is that if indeed the appellants feel that one of them should be out of prison in order to look after their children, then they should raise the fine for one of them. I find no convincing reason whatsoever to warrant me to release the appellants on bail pending appeal. Their application therefore fails. The same is hereby dismissed.
Delivered, signed and dated at Embu this 22nd day of July…2008.
W. KARANJA
JUDGE