Case ID:168645

Republic v Frankline Wesonga Okoth [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case 34 of 2020

Parties:

Republic v Frankline Wesonga Okoth

Date Delivered:

14 Dec 2020

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Eldoret

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Stephen Murugu Githinji

Citation:

Republic v Frankline Wesonga Okoth [2020] eKLR

Advocates:

Mr. Oduor for the accused person

Ms. Limo for state

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Uasin Gishu

Advocates:

Mr. Oduor for the accused person

Ms. Limo for state

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

Case Outcome:

Bond denied

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 ELDORET

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 34 OF 2020

REPUBLIC ..............................................................................STATE

VERSUS

FRANKLINE WESONGA OKOTH ...............................ACCUSED

RULING

Article 49(I) (h)

of the

Constitution of Kenya 2010

reads:-

“An arrested person has the right to be released on bond of bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.”

The accused herein is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to

Section 203

as read with

Section 204

of the

Penal Code.

Though this is a capital offence, there is no dispute that it’s bailable. What is in issue herein is whether the pre-bail report asked for by the court reveals compelling grounds of which would warrant the accused be denied bail or bond. The applicant says it does not as the disclosure by the probation officer that the accused tried to evade arrest by changing his sim card and destroying the victim’s phone, is based on information obtained from the investigation diary and should have been availed by the investigating officer so as to be cross examined. The allegation that the accused comes from Busia and can therefore easily abscond is unfair as Busia is part of Kenya.

The prosecutor on her part alleged the pre-bail report is negative on his release on bond and can’t just be wished away.

“Compelling”

means evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible or overwhelming way. The pre-bond report does not recommend the accused’s release on bond for the reasons that he is alleged to had changed his sim card and destroyed his victim’s phone. Also that he hails from Busia and can easily cross to Uganda. These factors are not compelling that the accused is a flight risk. If he changed his sim card and destroyed his victim’s phone as alleged, that was before his arrest and could have aimed at concealing the offence which is different from absconding. Having been identified as a suspect and arrested, changes the entire scenario. As a known suspect who have been charged, the chances to abscond could be lower. The other issue is that he hails from Busia. As rightly put by the Advocate for the applicant, Busia is in Kenya and denying him bond on that ground may amount to discrimination.

The pre-bail report does not therefore disclose compelling reasons which would lead to denial of bond to the accused person.

I do grant him bond of Kshs. 500,000/- with one surety in like amount or Cash bail of 300,000/-.

S. M GITHINJI

JUDGE

DATED, SIGNED

and

DELIVERED

at

ELDORET

this

14

th

day of

December,

2020.

In the presence of:-

Mr. Oduor for the accused person

Ms. Limo for state

Ms Gladys - Court assistant