Kelly Kases Bunjika v Republic [2019] KECA 519 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a bail appeal as moot because the appellant had already been convicted and was serving a prison sentence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant should be granted bond or have his bond terms reinstated in Criminal Case No. 53 of 2016 (robbery with violence)
- 2.Whether the appellant should be granted bond in Criminal Case No. 52 of 2016 (escape from lawful custody)
Key legal issues
#Mootness of a bail appeal following conviction and sentence
The Court declined to determine the appeal on the merits because the conviction and custodial sentence for escape from lawful custody rendered it moot
During oral highlighting of submissions, prosecution counsel informed the Court, and defence counsel admitted, that the appellant had been convicted on 29th October 2018 for escape from lawful custody and sentenced to two years imprisonment, with warrants filed to verify this. The Court held it was therefore unnecessary to deal with the appeal on the merits, as the relief sought (bond pending trial) could no longer avail an appellant serving a lawful prison sentence.
Legal principles established
#- A criminal appeal for bond that has been overtaken by events - where the appellant has been convicted and is serving a lawful custodial sentence - is moot and will be dismissed without determination on the merits
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed as it had become moot by the conviction and custodial sentence for escape from lawful custody
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kabarnet
- H.C. Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 64 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal against a ruling of the High Court in a criminal miscellaneous application, brought under various Articles of the Constitution and various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of bond in the robbery case and grant of bond in the escape case
The appeal had been overtaken by events as the appellant had already been convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for escape from lawful custody
Costs
No costs order appears 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed as it has become moot by the conviction and custodial sentence for escape from lawful custody.
It is obvious that by the time the appeal was argued, the appeal had been overtaken by events as he was now serving a lawful prison sentence.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the judgment states the trial was scheduled for 7th July 2014 although the case number is Criminal Case No. 53 of 2016 and the charge was said to have been pleaded to in 2016; also the dismissal of the bond application in Criminal Case No. 52 of 2016 is dated 28th November 2018 while paragraph 1 records the application for review of that order as dated 11th July 2017
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kelly Kases Bunjika v Republic [2019] KECA 519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Criminal (Application) Appeal No. 151 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/519/eng@2019-06-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.