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

William Simiyu Matere v Republic

Matere v Republic (Criminal Revision E004 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 6089 (KLR) (27 May 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6089 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION E004 OF 2023 DR KAVEDZA, J MAY 27, 2024 BETWEEN WILLIAM SIMIYU MATERE ................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant is an accused person before the subordinate court where he is facing two counts of offences. In count I, conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to section 393 of the Penal Code. and in count II, demanding property from menaces contrary to section 302 of the Penal Code. Before the said court, he sought and was granted a bond of Ksh. 2,000,000 with two sureties of a similar amount. The applicant made an application to be admitted to an alternative cash bail. On 20th March 2024, the court declined. 2. It is this order that the applicant is challenging on revision. The averments made are that the amount granted are colossal and he cannot afford it. His continued detention is contrary to the doctrine of presumption of innocent until proven guilty. 3. On 27th May 2024, when the application came up for hearing, the applicant was absent and failed to prosecute his application. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Orders accordingly. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 ______________ D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/6089/eng@2024-05-27 1

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.