Giche Ltd & 2 others v Director of Public Prosecution & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Explore the case summary of Giche Ltd & 2 others v Director of Public Prosecution & another [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and implications.

Case Summary: Giche Ltd & 2 others v Director of Public Prosecution & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Giche Ltd & Others v. Director of Public Prosecution & Another
- Case Number: Misc. Criminal Revision No 20 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya, Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division
- Date Delivered: July 10, 2020
- Category of Law: Criminal
- Judge(s): Hon. Mumbi Ngugi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues for the court to resolve include:
1. Whether the bail terms imposed by the trial court were excessive and unreasonable.
2. Whether the applicants should be released on their personal bond or on reasonable cash bail.
3. Whether the trial court's conditions regarding the deposit of passports were justified.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicants are Giche Ltd, a company, and its directors Joseph Chege Gikonyo and Lucy Kangai Stephen, who are husband and wife. They were charged with failure to pay taxes amounting to Kshs 38,694,692 under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003. They pleaded not guilty and were released on bail of Kshs 5 million each or a bond of Kshs 10 million. They filed this application seeking revision of the bail terms, arguing that the amounts were excessive and that they had complied with tax assessments from the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA).

4. Procedural History:
The applicants were charged in Anti-Corruption Case No. 13 of 2020. Following their arrest on June 29, 2020, they were granted bail on June 30, 2020. Dissatisfied with the bail conditions, they sought a revision from the High Court under Articles 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution and section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants claimed the bail conditions were unreasonable and did not consider their circumstances.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court examined the bail provisions under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and sections 123 and 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandate that bail should not be excessive and should consider the circumstances of the case.

- Case Law: The court referenced previous rulings, including *Reuben Marumben Lemunyete v Republic* and *Andrew Young Otieno v Republic*, emphasizing the right to reasonable bail terms and the presumption of innocence. The prosecution cited *Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu Babayao v Republic* to argue that the bail terms were appropriate given the serious nature of the charges.

- Application: The court found that the bail terms of Kshs 5 million each were excessive, especially given the applicants' financial circumstances, including their previous compliance with tax assessments. The court noted that the applicants had paid Kshs 20 million of the Kshs 38 million owed and that there was no evidence suggesting they were a flight risk. The court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the applicants' ability to meet bail terms.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the applicants, reducing their bail to Kshs 1 million each or a bond of Kshs 2 million. The requirement to deposit their passports was upheld. The decision underscored the need for bail terms to be reasonable and reflective of the accused's circumstances.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya revised the bail conditions imposed on the applicants, finding them excessive and unreasonable in light of their financial situation and previous compliance with tax obligations. The ruling highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances when determining bail and reinforces the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.