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

High Court 2075 of 2016

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS H.C.CR. MISC. APPL. 78 OF 2016 PAUL THIGA NGAMENYA ...…..…….................................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC .........................................................................RESPONDENT RULING OF THE COURT 1. The Chamber Summons application before the court is dated and filed herein on 10th August 2016 seeking for orders that the Applicant be granted bail pending appeal. The application is premised on the grounds that the offence for which the Appellant is convicted is bailable; that the Appellant is the sole bread winner for his young family; that there is an overwhelming probability of the appeal succeeding and that the Appellant will not abscond bond but will abide by the terms of bail if granted. 2. The application is supported by affidavit of the Appellant sworn on 10th August 2016. 3. The Appellant was charged and convicted with 2 counts of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving contrary to Section 46 of the Traffic Act. He was jailed for 2 years on 9th may 2016 and is currently serving the term. 4. The application is not opposed by the State. The Appellant has the right of appeal. However, at this stage he has no automatic right to bond pending appeal. But since the Application is not opposed by the State the same is allowed. 5. The Appellant shall be released on a personal bond of Kshs.100,000/= with a surety of a similar amount. This is the judgment of the court. Dated and delivered at Machakos this 4th day of October 2016. ……………………………………… E. OGOLA JUDGE In the presence of; M/S Gichuki holding brief for Otieno for applicant Mr. Machogu for State Court Assistant – Mr. Munyao

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.