Karugu Sons Seek Reduction of Sh700,000 Bail in Share Transfer Case

• Eric and Benjamin Karugu, along with Jane Wangechi Kabiu alias Jane Kabiu Gitau, applied to reduce their Sh700,000 cash bail.
• The accused are charged with conspiring to fraudulently transfer their sister's shareholding in Mathara Holdings Limited to Centurion Holdings Limited.
• The applicants argue that the value of the disputed share should have been taken into consideration when setting their bail terms.
• Their Sh700,000 cash bail is excessive and disproportionate to the value of the disputed share, according to the applicants.

"From the share transfer document the value of the said share is Ksh100," Mwaura states in the affidavit.

The sons of former Attorney-General James Karugu, Eric and Benjamin Karugu, along with a company secretary Jane Wangechi Kabiu alias Jane Kabiu Gitau, have applied to the Milimani Law Courts to reduce their Sh700,000 cash bail. The three are accused of conspiring to fraudulently transfer their sister's shareholding in Mathara Holdings Limited to Centurion Holdings Limited. In an affidavit sworn by Eric Mwaura Karugu on behalf of the applicants, they argue that the value of the disputed share should have been taken into consideration when setting their bail terms. The accused claim that the value of the disputed share is only Sh100 and that the alleged transaction merely moved the share from one company to another while leaving it registered in their sister's name.

The applicants also told the court that they were forced to turn to friends and relatives to raise the Sh700,000 cash bail each following their arrest and detention. However, they now claim that the people who assisted them are demanding repayment, placing them under financial pressure.

The applicants' application is based on Article 49 of the Constitution, which provides for an arrested person's right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions unless there are compelling reasons to deny release. The accused argue that their Sh700,000 cash bail is excessive and disproportionate to the value of the disputed share. Their lawyer, Wandugi Karathe, advised them that the Sh700,000 cash bail was 'not only inconsistent with the value of the alleged share' but also contrary to the constitutional requirement that bail terms be reasonable.

The applicants have told the court that they have complied with all conditions imposed since their release and have undertaken to abide by any alternative terms the court may impose if the bail is reviewed. They are asking the court to substantially reduce the cash bail or replace it with other reasonable conditions.

The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future bail applications in similar cases involving disputed shareholdings. A lawyer or compliance officer should watch for the implications of this decision, as it may impact the way bail terms are determined in such cases. The applicants' argument that the value of the disputed share should be taken into consideration when setting bail terms is a key aspect of their application.

The case also highlights the importance of considering the constitutional requirements for bail, particularly Article 49 of the Constitution. The court's decision on this matter will have far-reaching implications for individuals and companies involved in similar disputes.

A lawyer or compliance officer should watch for the precedent set by this case, as it may impact future bail applications in similar cases involving disputed shareholdings.

Source: Original reporting via [Source Name]