Case ID:170597

Joel Ouma Jonyo v Republic [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Revision E010 of 2020

Parties:

Joel Ouma Jonyo v Republic

Date Delivered:

05 Nov 2020

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Migori

Case Action:

Revision

Judge(s):

Roseline Pauline Vunoro Wendoh

Citation:

Joel Ouma Jonyo v Republic [2020] eKLR

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Migori

Case Outcome:

Revision 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 MIGORI

CRIMINAL REVISION E010 OF 2020

JOEL OUMA JONYO.............................................APPLICANT

=vs=

REPUBLIC.........................................................RESPONDNENT

REVISION

I have considered the request made by

Mr. Ezra Awino Advocate

, for revision of the order made by

Hon. Maritim

on 28

th

October, 2020. The accused

Joel Ouma Jonyo alias Baba Owino

faces a charge of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act.

The trial court granted the accused bond of Kshs. 200,000/= with one surety of the same amount. Somebody came to stand surety for the accused but the court declined to approve the said surety after assessing him as to his suitability as a surety.

The court has not denied accused bond as counsel has alleged. It is upon the accused to avail a surety who is acceptable to the court. It is the trial court that examines the surety to determine his suitability. The accused faces a serious offence. In evaluating a surety, the primary consideration by the court is to be satisfied that the surety will be able to avail the accused at the trial. This court will not interfere with the court’s discretion to determine whether the surety is suitable or not. The court may interfere in the exercise of the Court’s discretion only if accused had been unfairly denied bond or given unreasonable bond terms.

In the circumstances, I find no good reason to interfere with the discretion of the magistrate in determining who is a suitable surety. I decline to review the magistrate’s order.

DELIVERED, DATED

and

SIGNED at MIGORI this 5

th

day of November, 2020

R. WENDOH

JUDGE