[2016] KEHC 6774 (KLR)
The court found that although the prosecution alleged a risk of witness interference and absconding, these claims were not substantiated. The pre-bail reports were positive, with community members and the Chief expressing willingness to stand surety and vouching for the applicants' character. The only dissenting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6774 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Titus Kimathi Murea; Applicant: Stanely Murea Ntokirari; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 32 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application allowed; bail granted
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Murder Charge, Witness Interference, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Titus Kimathi Murea
Applicant
Stanely Murea Ntokirari
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail to the applicants.
- 3 Whether the applicants are likely to interfere with witnesses or abscond if released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the prosecution alleged a risk of witness interference and absconding, these claims were not substantiated. The pre-bail reports were positive, with community members and the Chief expressing willingness to stand surety and vouching for the applicants' character. The only dissenting voice was the victim's brother. The court held that there were no compelling reasons to deny bail, as the applicants had no prior conflicts with the law, and the prosecution's fears were not supported by evidence. Therefore, the applicants were entitled to bail pending trial.
Court Disposition
application allowed; bail granted
Orders
- The applicants are granted bond of Kshs.100,000 each with a surety of a similar amount.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO.32 of 2014
TITUS KIMATHI MUREA............................................1ST APPLICANT
STANELY MUREA NTOKIRARI.................................2ND APPLICANT
VS
REPUBLIC.....................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicants are charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code CAP 63 of the Laws of Kenya. By a Notice of Motion Application brought pursuant to Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code CAP 75 of the Laws of Kenya, the applicants have sought to be released on bail pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
The gist of the application is that given the nature of this case it may take long to conclude and the applicants have a line of dependants who entirely depend on them and that their continued detention may jeopardize their welfare.
The application was opposed. Mr. Mulochi, Counsel for the State, in opposing the application sought to rely on an affidavit sworn by PC Joseph Masango, the investigations officer in this case who deposed inter alia that all the key prosecution witnesses reside in the same locality with the applicants and therefore there is a high possibility that if released on bail the applicants will interfere with witnesses thus undermining the prosecution’s case; that given the severity of sentence, the accused persons were likely to abscond if released on bond and that there was hostility on the ground against the accused persons and that there was a possibility of the accused persons being lynched.
Even though an arrested person has Constitutional right to bail/bond pursuant to Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution (2010), the said right is not absolute because bond will be denied if there are compelling reasons. The constitution does not define what compelling reasons are, and therefore each case will depend on its own circumstances. The court will normally consider the guiding principles set out in the case of Ng’ang’a vs. Republic 1985 KLR 451 when the court considered as follows:
1. Whether the accused will turn up for his trial.
2. The seriousness of the charge.
3. Character and antecedents of the accused person.
4. Whether the security of the accused will be guaranteed if released.
The court has considered the affidavits and the pre-bail reports.
In the instant case it was contended inter alia by the prosecution that there was a possibility of the accused persons interfering with witnesses since they came from the same locality. This was however not proved and contrary to the prosecution’s assertions the pre-bail reports were positive indicated that all those interviewed except the victims brother were positive of the accused persons being released on bail. The Chief and members of the community who were interviewed were willing to stand surety for the accused persons; they talked well of the accused persons whom they described as humble and not being in conflict with the law before.
Considering the foregoing, I find that there are no compelling reasons as to why the applicants should not be released on bail.
In the circumstances, I allow the application and grant the accused persons bond of Kshs.100,000/= and a surety of a similar amount each.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
23/2/2016
PRESENT
Mr. Wanyoike for State
Mr. Wamache Holding Brief for Mr. Otieno for Accused
Ibrahim/Peninah, Court Assistants
Both Present, Accused