Skip to content
JudgmentRepublic VS FANUEL LUMUMBA AND JOEL SIMATWA AND 2 Other(s)6 min read

Republic VS FANUEL LUMUMBA AND JOEL SIMATWA AND 2 Other(s)

High Court at Kakamega High Court · · Stephen Mbungi

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at KAKAMEGA

Criminal Case E030 of 2024

Republic………………………………………………….…………PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

FANUEL LUMUMBA…………………………………………………..1ST    ACCUSED

JULIUS LUMUMBA……….……..………………………………………2ND ACCUSED

JOSHUA NGAIPA….………………………….…………………………3RD ACCUSED

JOEL SIMATWA….……………………………………………………..4TH ACCUSED

Ruling

  1. This ruling relates to the Accused’s oral application for bail pending trial. The application was presented by Learned Counsel Mr Onyonje  for the  1st accused and Mr Kombwayo for the 2nd ,3rd and 4th accused.
  2. The application was opposed.
  3. On its part, the prosecution relied on an Affidavit sworn by No 83421 Cpl John Opondo , the investigating officer, on 9th August , 2024.
  4. In the disposition, the investigator deposed that   releasing the 1st ,2nd, 3rd and 4th accused on bond or bail would be detrimental to their security and also lead to the rising   to a dangerous level, the tension that is already being experienced in Emulele village as a result of the incident.
  5. He also deponed that the Accused persons through their accomplices still at large had resorted to witness intimidation and threatening.
  6. Counsel urged this Court not to admit
  7. Citing the Constitution, Learned Prosecutor Mr  Mbonzo argued that the right to bail pending trial was not absolute. He urged this Court to really consider the rights of all parties and to strike a balance by disallowing the application.
  8. It is on the basis of the foregoing that this Court is called upon to determine the bail and bond application.

Analysis

  1. The foundation of bail or bond in Kenya is the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’).
  2. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution states as follows: -"An arrested person has the right to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or a trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released."
  3. Section 123(A) of the CPC sets out exceptions to the right to bail or bond.
  4. It provides that: -

"(1) Subject to Article 49 (1) (h) of the constitution and notwithstanding section 123, in making a decision on bail and bond, the Court shall have regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular –

a)the nature of seriousness of the offence;

b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused person;

c)the defendant’s record in respect of the fulfilment of obligations under previous grants of bail; and

d)the strength of the evidence of his having committed the office.

(2)A person who is arrested or charged with any offence shall be granted bail unless the Court is satisfied that the person-

a) has previously been granted bail and as failed to surrender to custody and that if released on bail (whether or not subject to conditions), it is likely that he would fail to surrender to custody;

b) Should be kept in custody for his own protection."

  1. The rationale behind bail or bond in Kenya is premised on the constitutional imperative under Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution that an accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
  2. In bail or bond applications, therefore, the primary consideration must always be the ability of the accused to attend trial. The only exception remains where compelling reasons are demonstrated. Ibrahim, J (as he then was) in Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR described the right to bail as an “inalienable right” by holding that;"The result of the foregoing is that a murder suspect has a constitutional right to be released on bail. This is an inalienable right and can only be restricted by the court if there are compelling reasons for him not to be released."
  3. Therefore, in granting bail or bond, the trial court is called upon to exercise its discretion and, if there are no compelling reasons to deny an accused bail or bond, the trial court should exercise its discretion in favour of the accused.
  4. In delineating the parameters of ‘compelling reasons’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ and remaining alive to the provisions of Section 123(A) of the CPC, the High Court in Republic v Pascal Ochieng Lawrence [2014] eKLR stated as under: -"…. It is to be noted that unlike in the past when an accused person had to demonstrate why he should be released on bail/bond, that duty now properly belongs to the State. The Court in exercising its discretion as to whether or not to grant bond is, however, to be guided by the following parameters: -
  • the seriousness of the offence although this carried greater weight under the old constitutional dispensation;
  • the weight of the evidence so far adduced if the case is partly heard;
  • the possibility of the accused interfering with witnesses;
  • the safety and protection of the accused once he/she is released on bail/bond;
  • whether the accused will turn up for trial;
  • Whether the release of the accused will jeopardize the security of the community.”
  1. Further, the High Court in Republic v Joshua Mueke Mutunga & 3 others [2020] eKLR in determining the criteria to be applied on whether to grant bail or bond relied on the decision by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Alhaji Muiahid Dukubo-Asari v Federal Republic of Nigeria, SC 20AI /2006 which set out a similar criteria on the granting of bail by holding as follows: -

            "…When it comes to the issue of whether to grant or refuse bail pending trial of an accused by the trial court, the law has set out some criteria which the trial court shall consider in the exercise of its judicial discretion to arrive at a decision. These criteria have been well articulated in several decisions of this court. Such criteria include among others, the following:

  1. The nature of the charges;
  2. The strength of the evidence which supports the charge;
  3. The gravity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
  4. The previous criminal record of the accused, if any;
  5. The probability that the accused may not surrender himself for trial;
  6. The likelihood of the accused interfering with witnesses or may suppress any evidence that may incriminate him;
  7. The likelihood of further charges being brought against the accused;
  8. The probability of guilty;
  9. Detention for the protection of the accused;
  10. The necessity to procure medical or social report pending final disposal of the case”.

18. The prosecution’s contention in this matter is twofold. First, that the Accused  persons security is at a risk due to the tension that is already witnessed and the retaliation tendency in the area , and, second, that the Accused  persons   through there accomplices who are at large are already intimidating and threatening witnesses.

19. In dealing with this matter, this Court should not lose sight of the fact that the right to bail or bond is one of those rights under the Bill of Rights whose enforcement is aimed at preserving the dignity of individuals and communities, the promotion of social justice and the retaliation of the potential of all human beings.

20. Having said as much, this Court now turns to a consideration of the grounds tendered in opposition to the application.

21.On the ground that the releasing the accused persons being detrimental to their security, the probation report categorically states that the community is hostile.However the security of an individual starts with the person and this case the accused person.The said accussed persons have not raised an issue as to their security being threatened by the public or the victim’s family.

22. On the interference with witnesses, this Court finds that the State did not tender any evidence in support of the contention. The fact that the witnesses have been receiving threats related to the accused cannot be a measure of imputing interference. The prosecution has also failed to produce any evidence of the intimidation and interference. As such, the ground fails.

23. Having carefully considered this matter and in light of the in-depth analysis of the Constitution, the law and various decisions, this Court finds in light of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and Section 123A(2)(b) of the CPC, there is a compelling reason in this case such that admitting the accused to bail or bond at this point in time will be prejudicial to the trial.

24.It is on the basis of the above sole reason and in light of the unique circumstances of this case that this Court allows this application.

33.Consequently, the following orders do hereby issue: -

  1. The application seeking that the accused be admitted to bond and bail pending trial is hereby allowed.
  2. Each accused person is admitted to a bond of Kshs.1,000,000/- and a surely of a similar amount.

Those are the orders of this Court.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024.