Applicants are entitled to bail for the offence of manslaughter as it is bailable, they previously complied with bail conditions, and the law and precedents support granting bail with appropriate conditions.
The High Court granted bail to the applicant in an economic crime case, imposing cash deposit, sureties, travel limits, and surrender of travel documents.
The High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant bail in economic offences involving property valued at ten million shillings or more before trial. There was no evidence that the applicants themselves were likely to abscond, and it would be unjust to deny bail based solely on the actions of former co-accused. The applicants are entitled to bail upon fulfillment of statutory conditions.
The applicant is entitled to bail as the offence is bailable, bail is a constitutional right, and the applicant previously adhered to bail conditions. No legal basis to deny bail in this case.
The arbitrator erred in barring the applicant's personal representative based on matters of fact and not law, violating the applicant's statutory and constitutional right to representation of her own choice. The impugned ruling was not justified and must be set aside.
Section 26(2)(b) of the Parastatal Pensions Act, as amended, does not infringe Article 23 of the Constitution because 'ujira' (remuneration for labour) is distinct from 'pension', and the constitutional protection applies only to remuneration for active employment. The retrospectivity of the provision is not relevant to its constitutionality, and no manifest error or illegality was demonstrated in the prior judgment.
The applicants are entitled to bail as the offences are bailable and the High Court has jurisdiction due to the value involved; bail is granted subject to statutory and reasonable conditions to ensure appearance and accountability.
The High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail in economic offences even where the value of the subject matter is not stated, and the applicant is entitled to bail as the offences are bailable and there is no objection from the prosecution.
The High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail in economic offences even where the value of the subject matter is not stated, and the applicant is entitled to bail as the offence is bailable and there is no objection from the prosecution.
The search at the appellants' home was illegal as it was conducted without written authority, not by an officer in charge, during prohibited hours, and not as an emergency; evidence obtained from the illegal search was inadmissible as the requirements of section 169 of the CPA were not met; with the exclusion of this evidence, the prosecution's case could not be sustained.