[2020] KEHC 2978 (KLR)
The High Court held that while courts have, in practice, allowed consolidation of bond terms for multiple cases within the same court to facilitate an accused's release, there is no statutory or procedural basis for consolidating bond terms across different courts. The court relied on precedent, specifically Jackson...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2978 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Walter Ondari Aguvasu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 542 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Consolidate Bond Terms
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Consolidation of Bond Terms, Criminal Procedure, Jurisdiction of Courts
- 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
Walter Ondari Aguvasu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Consolidate Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can consolidate bond terms imposed by different Magistrate's Courts in separate criminal cases.
- 2 Whether the absence of express statutory provision precludes consolidation of bond terms across different courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that while courts have, in practice, allowed consolidation of bond terms for multiple cases within the same court to facilitate an accused's release, there is no statutory or procedural basis for consolidating bond terms across different courts. The court relied on precedent, specifically Jackson Ngui Kisaa vs. Republic [2017] eKLR, which established that such consolidation would make it impossible for the separate courts to supervise the accused and ensure attendance. The absence of express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code and the practical impossibility of supervision led the court to dismiss the application. The applicant's constitutional right to bail was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to consolidate bond terms is dismissed.
- The court files are to be returned to the respective Magistrate’s Courts.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2019
WALTER AGUVASU........................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.....................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Walter Ondari Aguvasu, is facing various charges relating to conspiracy to defraud under Section 393 of the Penal Code and theft under Section 268(1) as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code. The Applicant is facing the said charges before three (3) courts: At Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Case No.1669 of 2017 and 1670 of 2017), at Makadara Chief Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Case No.3247 of 2019) and at City Court Chief Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Case No.1223 of 2017). In all the cases, the Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was released on bail pending trial in all these cases. However, the Applicant has not been able to meet the bond terms imposed on each case. He has consequently made an application to this court to have the bond terms issued by the various courts consolidated into one so that he can be able to meet the said bond terms.
During the hearing of the Application, Ms. Maina for the Applicant reiterated that the issue before the court is not whether or not the Applicant should be released on bail pending trial but rather variation of the terms of bond that were imposed by the trial courts. She submitted that the Applicant was granted bond by the various courts. Unfortunately, he had not been able to raise the said bond terms. He was therefore requesting the court to consolidate the various bonds that were issued to him into one consolidated bond term so that he can be able to be released to enjoy his liberty pending the hearing and determination of the various criminal cases that he is facing. She urged the court to take into consideration the fact that during the period that the Applicant has been in remand custody, his family had been deprived of a breadwinner. She insisted that the Applicant was not a flight risk and would attend court when required.
The Application is opposed. Mr. Momanyi for the State submitted that the Applicant was facing various charges before various courts. It is not possible to consolidated bond terms in respect of cases which are before separate courts. If the court was minded to grant the application, he insisted that the Applicant should provide at least two sureties to ensure that the Applicant attends court during trial. He was however of the view that the application should be disallowed.
This court has carefully considered the rival submission made by the parties herein. The Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for consolidation of bond terms in respect of separate cases and in separate courts. However, practice has evolved whereby, in the broader interest of justice, courts have allowed an accused, who has several charges facing him in different cases in the same court to have their bond terms consolidated so as to enable the accused to be released on bail pending trial. The situation in respect of charges laid against an accused in different courts is however different. The court in Jackson Ngui Kisaa vs. Republic [2017] eKLR held thus:
“Whereas it is the Applicant’s Constitutional right to be released on bail pending trial unless there are compelling reasons, this court is of the view that it cannot consolidated the bond terms granted to the Applicant by different courts. The reason for this is that it would be impossible for the two different courts to supervise the Applicant and ensure that he attends court without fail.”
In the present application, the Applicant is facing charges before three different courts. The principle enunciated above applies in his case. It will be impossible for any of the courts to supervise him should he abscond from the jurisdiction of the court.
This court therefore holds that the Applicant’s application cannot be allowed. It is hereby dismissed. The court files that were availed to this court for the purpose of the hearing of this application are ordered return to the respective Magistrate’s Courts. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
HON. L. KIMARU
JUDGE