Republic v SNW [2022] KEHC 3262 (KLR)

Republic v SNW (Criminal Case 19 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 3262 (KLR) (13 July 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 3262 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Murang'a

Criminal Case 19 of 2020

K Kimondo, J

July 13, 2022

Between

Republic

Prosecution

and

SNW

Accused

Ruling

1. The accused seeks review of the ruling made on 18th November 2020 denying him bail. I should point out that he is a minor now aged 15 years and has been in custody throughout his trial.

2. The notice of motion is dated April 19, 2022 and supported by the deposition of his father, DNW.

3. He avers that the primary reason for denial of bail was that the family of the deceased was angst; and, that the security of the accused would be jeopardized. To ameliorate the situation, the deponent claims that he has relocated from the locus in quo to Kenol Township. He implored me to find that the circumstances have changed and that it is only fair and just to admit the accused to bail.

4. The motion is contested by the Republic. Learned prosecution counsel submitted that there is no documentary evidence showing the family has relocated. It was also argued that the accused is likely to abscond because he was placed on his defence and the trial has closed.

5. I take the following view of the matter. The overarching objective of bail is to ensure the accused attends trial. See Muraguri v Republic [1989] KLR 181, Republic v Elias Kipkemoi, Eldoret High Court Criminal Case 42 of 2014 (unreported).

6. Under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution, the accused is entitled to bail unless there are compelling circumstances.

7. Other relevant matters to be considered by the court include: The nature of the charge; the likely sentence; previous criminal records; the views of the family of the victim; the possibility of interference with witnesses; the temptation to abscond; and, the safety of the accused.

8. The application for review must fail for four main reasons. Firstly, the father of the accused has made a bare statement that he has relocated unpardoned by any evidence. Nothing would have been easier than to annex a tenancy agreement, lease or ownership documents of his new premises at Kenol township.

9. Secondly, no fresh pre-bail report has been filed to show that the environment at the locus in quo has dramatically changed. The reasons for denial of bail in the impugned ruling of 18th Novvember 2020 have thus not been meaningfully debunked.

10. Thirdly, the accused faces the grave charge of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that on August 19, 2020 at Rokoroi village, Gatanga Sub-County within Muran’ga County, he murdered Dennis Wanjiri Mbugua. I must emphasize that he is still presumed innocent.

11. Ten witnesses testified for the State. On March 29, 2022, the court found that the Republic had established a prima facie case against the accused. The accused has now testified and called one witness in his defence. His trial has thus come to an end save for the filing of final submissions by counsel.

12. Granted the stage of the trial, the application for review is not only belated but I find that the temptation and likelihood to abscond is not far-fetched. I empathize with his predicament but find that no good cause has been shown for review.

13. The upshot is that the notice of motion dated April 19, 2022 is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022. KANYI KIMONDOJUDGERuling read in open court in the presence of:Accused person.Mr. Waweru for the Republic instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.Ms. C. Mutahi, Court Assistant.