Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

High Court 2372 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU REVISION NO. 6 OF 2013 JOHN KOECH & 6 OTHERS………………….…….APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………………………….RESPONDENT REVISION This file was placed before me for purposes of the exercising revisionary powers pursuant to Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 30/5/2013, Hon. Nthuku, Senior Resident Magistrate forfeited the cash bail that had been given to the accused persons for reason that they had failed to appear in court since December 2012. The court had issued a warrant of arrest for the accused and the police had claimed that they were unable to trace the accused persons. On 30/5/2013, the accused persons appeared before the Hon. Magistrate at 1.10 p.m. in company of counsel, Miss Njeri who sought the lifting of the warrants of arrest for reasons that the accused have been coming to court but going to Court 1 since December 2012. The court did not accept the explanation given on behalf of the accused person for reasons that counsel should have advised them which court to go to or they would have asked for directions. The accused persons appeared in court for plea on 16/11/2012 and were given bond of Kshs.50,000/- and cash bail of Kshs.20,000/-. The file was placed before me to revise the bond terms downwards which I did by giving the accused persons cash bail of Kshs.5,000/-. They paid the cash bail and from that day, they never attended court following which warrants of arrest were issued. I do agree with the Hon. Magistrate that the explanation given by the accused was not satisfactory. If indeed they had come to court, they would have asked for directions or their counsel would have directed them where to go. There is no good reason why this court should excise its discretion and vary the bond terms given to the accused. An order of review is not deserved. The bond terms of kshs.5,000/- are fair in the circumstances because the accused are not responsible enough to come to court by themselves. It seems they will need somebody to over see it and that will be done by the surety. Order of revision is declined. R.P.V. WENDOH JUDGE 11/6/2013

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.