Case ID:185940

Republic v Elizabeth Wanjiku Wanja [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case E011 of 2021

Parties:

Republic v Elizabeth Wanjiku Wanja

Date Delivered:

26 Oct 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Murang'a

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Kanyi Kimondo

Citation:

Republic v Elizabeth Wanjiku Wanja [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Ms. Waititu holding brief for Ms. Boore for all the accused

Ms. A. Gakumu for the Republic

Court Division:

Criminal

Advocates:

Ms. Waititu holding brief for Ms. Boore for all the accused

Ms. A. Gakumu for the Republic

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

Case Outcome:

Bail 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 MURANG’A

CRIMINAL CASE NO. E011 OF 2021

REPUBLIC.........................................................PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

ELIZABETH WANJIKU WANJA.....................1

ST

ACCUSED

PATRICK MUTURI WANJA...........................2

ND

ACCUSED

ELIJA GICHOHI WANJIKU...........................3

RD

ACCUSED

RULING

1. The three accused persons pray for bail pending trial.

2. The application is opposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the basis of three pre-bail reports filed on 30

th

September 2021.

3. 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).

4. Under

Article 49 (1) (h)

of the

Constitution

, the accused persons are entitled to bail unless there are compelling circumstances.

5. 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.

6. The

Victims Protection Act 2014

also requires that the views of victim’s family be considered at this stage.

7. The accused are charged with

murder

. The Director of Public Prosecutions informs the High Court that on the night of 27

th

and 28

th

April 2021 at Gitugi Location, Mathioya Sub-County within Murang’a County, they murdered

Michael Kamau Mire

.

8. I have closely studied each of the pre-bail reports. In respect of the 1

st

accused, I am satisfied that her

safety

would be in jeopardy. The deceased was a close family member of all the accused. There is palpable anger at the

locus in quo

; and, there is potential for acts of revenge. For the same reasons, the security of the 2

nd

and 3

rd

accused persons cannot also be guaranteed. In addition, the victim’s family and the area chief are strongly opposed to their release.

9. In the end, I find that there are

compelling

reasons for denial of bail. Bail is accordingly

denied

.

It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 26

TH

DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.

KANYI KIMONDO

JUDGE

Ruling read in open court in the presence of-

The 1

st

, 2

nd

and 3

rd

accused.

Ms. Waititu holding brief for Ms. Boore for all the accused.

Ms. A. Gakumu for the Republic.

Ms. Dorcas Waichuhi & Ms. Susan Waiganjo, Court Assistants.