Case ID:168050
Parties: None
Date Delivered: None
Case Type: None
Court: None
Judges: None
Citation: None
Francis Wanyoro Mburu v Republic [2020] eKLR
Case Metadata
Case Number:
Criminal Case 15 of 2020
Parties:
Francis Wanyoro Mburu v Republic
Date Delivered:
18 Dec 2020
Case Class:
Criminal
Court:
High Court at Kiambu
Case Action:
Ruling
Judge(s):
Mary Muhanji Kasango
Citation:
Francis Wanyoro Mburu v Republic [2020] eKLR
Court Division:
Criminal
County:
Kiambu
Case Outcome:
Application Dismissed
Disclaimer:
The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO 15 OF 2020
FRANCIS WANYORO MBURU.........ACCUSED/APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC........................................................... PROSECUTOR
R U L I N G
1. Francis Wanyoro Mburu
is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 2032 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and is now awaiting trial. He has applied by his application of Notice of Motion dated 10
th
November 2020 that he be granted bail pending trial.
2.
A pre-trial probation report has been availed to the court. It shows that the Accused comes from a large family of ten siblings. The Accused did not advance in education beyond class 8 which was due to the financial challenge of his parents. Prior to his arrest for the present offence the Accused was working as a casual Labourer in Mwea area. He has married but separated with his spouse in the year 2016. That union was blessed with one child. He consumes alcohol and at his own admission he was heavily intoxicated when the alleged offence was committed.
3.
It is important to note that the Accused is charged with the offence of murder of his brother
Thomas Kaigo Mburu (deceased).
Consequently, there is, understandably, tension amongst family member which is directed towards the Accused. The family is against the Accused being granted bail. Similarly, Members of the public, are bitter over the offence, the subject of this case, and there is the threat to the wellbeing of the Accused as result of that bitterness.
4.
Because of the sentiments of the Accused family and the members of the public and because it is feared by them that the Accused may interfere with witnesses in my view that is a compelling reason to deny the Accused bail. A case in point of when the balance of denying an Accused person tilts in its denial is the case
Republic –vs- Diana Suleiman Said and Another (2014) e KLR
this:
“14. The Supreme Court of India in the
Deokar
case cited its previous decision in
Masroor v. State of Uttah Pradesh and Anor.
2009) (14) SCC 286 as follows:
“There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned.”
15. I consider that the principles generally of the accused’s ability or propensity to interfere with the due administration of justice having regard to the circumstances of the case and the considerations of the society or public interest are matters to be considered in considering a review of bail. See also
Aboud Rogo Mohamed & Another v. R
,
Nairobi HCCR.C. No. 793 of 2010 and
The Defence Forces Council & 6 Others v. Gabriel Kirigha Chawana & 26 Others,
Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 9 of 2014.”
5. In view of the above the application dated 10
th
November 2020 for bail pending hearing and determination of this case is declined. It is dismissed.
SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18
TH
DAY OF DECEMBER 2020.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
18
th
December 2020
Before Justice Mary Kasango
C/A - Kevin
Accused - Present
For Accused - Mr. Gikenye holding brief for Mr. Olaka
For the State - Mr. Kasyoka
C
OURT
Ruling virtually delivered in their presence.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE