Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCriminal Appeal 3 of 1995

MARTIN M. ODHIAMBO v REPUBLIC [1995] KECA 36 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
31 July 1995
ACA.M. Cockar
169 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled you cannot ask again for bail if you already have it, and High Court bail decisions cannot be appealed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Martin M. Odhiambo, applied under rule 5(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules for review of the bond granted by the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Justice Ondeyo, 31st May 1995, in H.C. Misc. Appl. No. 113 of 1995), contending that the conditions of bail were onerous. The application was made in an intended appeal from that ruling. The Court of Appeal, in a ruling dated and delivered at Nairobi on 31st July 1995, dismissed the application on three grounds. First, the applicant was already on bail, and a person already on bail cannot apply again for bail; the framing of the application as a review of bond terms did not escape that bar. Secondly, the applicant had not set out in his notice of appeal the conviction against which he had appealed, as required by rule 58 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Thirdly, the court held that there can be no appeal to the Court of Appeal against the granting of bail, so no appellate challenge to the bond terms was available on that route. The application was accordingly dismissed. No costs order was recorded, no authorities were cited, and the ruling is a single judgment of the court. The decision establishes that the Court of Appeal will not entertain repeat bail applications by persons already on bail and that bail decisions of the High Court are not appealable to it.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Court of Appeal can review bond terms granted by the High Court on the ground that the bail conditions are onerous
  2. 2.Whether an applicant already on bail can apply again for bail or variation of bond terms under rule 5(2)(a)
  3. 3.Whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal against the granting of bail

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court of Appeal may entertain an application under rule 5(2)(a) to review bond terms granted by the High Court where the applicant is already on bail

Holding

The application was dismissed because an applicant already on bail cannot apply again for bail, the notice of appeal did not comply with rule 58, and no appeal lies against the granting of bail

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the applicant's status as a person already released on bail barred a fresh bail application, including one framed as a review of onerous bond conditions. In addition, the notice of appeal failed to set out the conviction appealed against as required by rule 58, a mandatory prerequisite. Finally, the court held that bail decisions of the High Court are not appealable to the Court of Appeal, removing the jurisdictional foundation for the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant who is already on bail cannot apply again for bail before the Court of Appeal
  • There is no appeal to the Court of Appeal against the granting of bail

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for variation of bond terms is dismissed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AC
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
H.C. Misc. Appl. No. 113 of 1995
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for review of bond terms in an intended appeal)

Relief refused

#

Review of the bond granted by the High Court on the ground that the bail conditions were onerous

The applicant was already on bail and could not apply again for bail; the notice of appeal did not set out the conviction as required by rule 58; and no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal against the granting of bail

p. 2

Costs

No costs order was made in the judgment

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

But the applicant being already on bail, he cannot again apply for bail.
p. 2Bar on repeat bail applications by a person already on bail
There can be no appeal to this court against the granting of bail.
p. 2No appeal lies against the granting of bail
The application is hereby dismissed.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of the application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The coram appears to list only the Chief Justice, A.M. Cockar, although the ruling is titled 'RULING OF THE COURT', which ordinarily denotes a multi-judge bench; no other judges are named in the judgment as provided

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "MARTIN M. ODHIAMBO v REPUBLIC [1995] KECA 36 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1995). Criminal Appeal 3 of 1995. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1995/36/eng@1995-07-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.