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

Republic v Ephantus Karanja Wangari

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA T MURANG’A CRIMINAL CASE NO 16 OF 2015 REPUBLIC……………………………………PROSECUTOR VERSUS EPHANTUS KARANJA WANGARI ….…………ACCUSED RULING 1. The Accused Ephantus Karanja Wangari is charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged in the information dated 08/04/2015 that on 2 nd February 2015 at Gitambaa village in Ruiru within Kiambu County he murdered one Peter Karanja. On 30/04/2015 he pleaded not guilty to the charge. His trial is scheduled to start on 09/11/2015. He has in the meantime applied to be admitted to bail pending the trial. 2. The Republic has opposed his release on bail by a replying affidavit filed on 23/06/2015 sworn by one No 71620 CPC Anlet Kaloki. The only reasons advanced for opposing bail are that the Accused is likely to abscond his trial due to the gravity of the offence he faces, and that there is a possibility of interference with witnesses. 3. As for gravity of the offence, bail is now a constitutional right for all criminal offences and will be denied only for compelling reason. Conditions for such bail must be reasonable. For all these see Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 4. Regarding the possibility of interference with witnesses, no shred of evidence of that likelihood has been placed before the court; speculation is not evidence. 5. I find no compelling reason to deny the Accused bail. He shall be admitted to bail upon his own cognizance in the sum of KShs 100,000/00 and one surety in like sum. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015 H P G WAWERU JUDGE DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2015

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.