RULING
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. The Applicant moved this Court by way of a Notice of Motion application dated 20 th May 2026, preferred under Article 165(6) of the Constitution of Kenya and Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a revision of the lower court's decision in Kilifi CMCRC No. E659 of 2025 and an order to be admitted to bail or bond pending trial.
2. The application challenges the decision delivered by the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon. James N. Mwaniki, Chief Magistrate, on 4 th May 2026. By the said ruling, the learned Chief Magistrate dismissed the Applicant's application dated 29 th January 2026 which had moved the court to review its initial bail denial orders issued on 22 nd December 2025.
3. The application is supported by the grounds set out on the face of the Motion and supported by an Affidavit. The supporting affidavit is sworn by learned counsel on record for the Applicant, Mr. Angima.
4. The State/Respondent vehemently opposed the application. The Application proceeded by way of written submissions which this Court has fully considered.
5. The Applicant was arrested on 24 th November 2025 and arraigned before the Kilifi Chief Magistrate's Court on 27 th November 2025, facing the following infractions:
i) Count I: Money Laundering contrary to Section 3(a) as read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), where the Applicant allegedly engaged in an arrangement to transfer KES 3,782,515/= to himself through cell phone number 254723301000, with knowledge or reason to believe the funds constituted proceeds of crime.
ii) COUNT II: money laundering contrary to section 3(b)-1 as read with section 16 of the proceeds of crime and anti-money laundering act (POCAMLA), 2009, on diverse dates between January 2025 and November 2025 within the Republic of Kenya, the Applicant, allegedly knowingly concealed the source and recipient of funds amounting to KES 3,782,515/= while knowing or having reason to believe that the said funds were proceeds of crime, though obtaining money by false pretence, with the intent of concealing source and movement of the said proceeds.
The other counts are as follows;
iii) Count III : Obtaining Money by False Pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.
iv) Count IV: Obtaining Money by False Pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.
v) Count V: Conspiracy to Defraud contrary to Section 317 of the Penal Code.
vi) Count VI: Unauthorised Registration of SIM Card Using Another Person's Identity contrary to Section 17 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018.
vii) Count VII: Unauthorised Registration of SIM Card Using Another Person's Identity contrary to Section 17 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018.
6. On the face of it, these counts reveal that the Applicant stands charged with multiple counts of economic and cybercrime-related offenses. The counts trace an alleged syndicated financial and cyber enabled enterprise executed between January 2025 and November 2025.
II. THE APPLICANT’S CASE
7. The Applicant’s case is anchored on the grounds on the face of the Motion and the written submissions presented by Counsel for the Applicant. It was urged upon this Court that:
(a) The Applicant is a Kenyan citizen with a well-known place of abode.
(b) The Applicant has at all material times consistently cooperated with the investigating officers.
(c) All the offenses the Applicant is charged with are under local statutes inherently bailable.
(d) The State has failed to demonstrate any compelling reasons to warrant the severe curtailment of the Applicant's pretrial liberty, hence continuing to hold him violates his constitutional right to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
8. Further, Applicant advanced a plea of ill health, asserting through his pleadings that he is sickly and requires targeted medical attention outside the walls of the remand prison facility.
9. The learned counsel for the Applicant made this plea from the bar that the Applicant requires urgent medical attention, which they argue constitutes a distinct humanitarian ground for admission to bail.
10. To support the grounds as compelling to warrant pre-trial release, the applicant defined the legal contours of what constitutes a compelling reason, with the case of; Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [Bungoma HCCR Case No. 55 of 2009] , where Gikonyo J. stated that compelling reasons must be "forceful and convincing" and cannot be founded on flimsy grounds.
III. THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
11. As at the time of delivering this ruling, the State had not filed any responses to the Application before me. However, the State’s failure to file fresh submissions for the High Court Application does not stop the court from reviewing the case.
12. When evaluating applications for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court’s primary duty is to call for the and examine the trial Court records. The Court is invited to verify the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order made by the trial Court. Because the State’s lower court pleadings and charge sheets form part of the Court’s records, I will proceed to examine the same. State’s grounds of objection and the operational affidavits on record were also examined.
13. The State's pushback rests on two primary contentions:
i) First, that the original objection to bail is firmly rooted in the affidavit deposed by No. 95593 CPL James Ngotho, which brought to light the fact that the Applicant is a critical link in an ongoing multi-agency investigation involving sophisticated fraud where he systematically utilizes alternate names or aliases to evade tracking.
ii) Second, that the active investigation handled by the Economic and Commercial Crimes Unit under the DCI is sprawling and supported by multiple active judicial warrants.
14. The State submitted that releasing the Applicant into the digital space while investigations are ongoing would completely compromise forensic recovery.
15. The State urged the Court to sustain its earlier findings on the basis that the unique convergence of the Applicant’s circumstances creates an unmanageable flight risk, presents a legitimate threat to public order, and points to a systemic pattern of criminal conduct.
IV . ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
16. Having considered the Motion, the affidavits, the certified lower court records, and the written submissions by the Applicant, this Court distils two issues for determination:
i) Whether the learned Trial Magistrate exercised his judicial discretion judiciously and within proper legal parameters in finding that "compelling reasons" exist under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 to justify the denial of bail; and
ii) Whether unverified medical claims without accompanying clinical documentation can properly form a basis for a bail review or revision.
V. LEGAL ANALYSIS
i) Whether the learned Trial Magistrate exercised his judicial discretion judiciously and within proper legal parameters in finding that "compelling reasons" exist under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 to justify the denial of bail.
17. The legal regime governing the application of bail and bond is drawn from the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 75 of the laws of Kenya), the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, 2015 and case law or judicial precedents.
18. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya gives an arrested person the right to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
19. Admission to bail is an essential constitutional right under Article 49(1)(h), but it is not an absolute right. As rightly cited by the Applicant in Republic v Joktan Mayende,(supra) the reasons to deny bail must be forceful, convincing, and legally sound.
20. In Republic v Nuseiba Mohammed Haji Osman [2018] eKLR the Court stated,
inter alia that:
“Denial of a constitutional right is not a matter to be treated lightly and therefore any claims made against an accused person aimed at curtailing the constitutional right to liberty must not be made on speculation or conjecture.”
21. This Court, is therefore, invited to pronounce itself on all these constitutional and statutory principles regarding bail.
22. In measuring whether compelling reasons exist, this Court is guided by the statutory markers set out under Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which commands courts to evaluate the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character, antecedents, and associations of the accused, and the structural risks to the administration of justice.
23. It is therefore the duty of this Court to evaluate the Trial Court records and established whether the State has demonstrated compelling reasons within the matrix of Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code to justify the denial of bail.
Section 123A provides as follows;
(1) Subject to Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and notwithstanding section 123, in making a decision on bail and bond, the Court shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances and in particular—
(a) the nature or seriousness of the offence;
(b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused person;
(c) ………………………………. and;
(d) the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence;
24. It is well established law that the constitutional right to bail must be balanced against the broader interests of justice. The right to bail is not absolute and can be curtailed where there is a demonstrable risk of flight or interference with investigations. The Court of Appeal decision in Michael Juma Oyamo & another v Republic, (2019) JELR 99125 (CA) the court held that where an accused exhibits sophisticated operational capabilities or traces of using multiple identities, the risk of absconding is drastically heightened, constituting a compelling reason to deny bail.
25. A look at the lower court records reveals that the active investigations by the Economic and Commercial Crimes Unit under the DCI are supported by three substantive miscellaneous files:
i) Misc. Cr. Appl. No. E136 of 2025, which granted search warrants over the homes, vehicles, and electronic gadgets of the suspects.
ii) Misc. Cr. Appl. No. E093 of 2025, issued to trace and map numerous M-Pesa accounts linked to the enterprise.
iii) Misc. Cr. Appl. No. E101 of 2025, covering bank accounts and connected utility networks .
26. The State's core objection, as deposed by CPL James Ngotho, reveals that the Applicant systematically operates under different named to mask his identity while running these schemes. The charge sheet underscores this by showing counts where the Applicant allegedly used identity card details belonging to other citizens to register fraudulent SIM cards.
27. The Applicant has asserted that he is a Kenyan citizen with a well known place of abode. This court is therefore invited to cumulatively aassess whether or not he is a flight risk and/or likely to abscond.
28. The Applicant has placed significant reliance on a search warrant issued in parallel proceedings that the State itself has tracked them to specific physical addresses in Nakuru, Kisii, and Nairobi City Counties. On the face of it, this indicates extensive domestic presence serves as a physical anchor within the Republic.
29. While this Court notes that geographical mapping exists, the critical inquiry under the Judiciary Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, 2015 is not merely whether coordinates can be identified, but whether those coordinates represent a stable, traceable, and legally binding relationship between the accused person and a fixed locality.
30. Crucially, the Applicant has not submitted any documentary evidence of formal lease or tenancy agreements linking them to these properties.
31. In the absence of documented contractual obligations, a network of multiple rental properties spread across different regions does not signal permanent societal integration; rather, it indicates an extraordinary capacity for mobility and transience.
32. This structural fluidity must be viewed alongside the fact that the Applicant has no known source of legal livelihood or visible economic activity.
33. The case of Republic v. Joseph Kuria Irungu alias Jowie [2018] eKLR makes it clear that where an accused person exhibits a fluid living arrangement without documented or verifiable permanent domestic anchors, and lacks an identifiable legal source of income, the court is entitled to deduce the existence of a "flight persona."
34. As such, an accused person with no structural, vocational, or financial attachments to a specific locality poses an inherent risk of absconding.
ii) Whether unverified medical claims without accompanying clinical documentation can properly form a basis for a bail review or revision.
35. I now turn to the submissions that the Applicant requires urgent medical attention and should be released on bail to seek treatment.
36. The Applicant has strongly pleaded that he is a sickly person whose health condition demands medical intervention outside the custodial limits of the prison facility. This is deposed to in the supporting affidavit sworn by learned counsel on record for the Applicant, Mr. Angima.
37. The law on this point is settled. While an advocate is not absolutely barred from swearing an affidavit, such an affidavit is only permissible where the matters deponed to are either formal, uncontested, or within the advocate's personal knowledge.
38. Where, however, the affidavit traverses contested factual matters or matters that go to the substratum of this application, such deposition is improper. These are not peripheral or procedural matters. They go to the very foundation of the application and form the factual basis upon which the court is invited to exercise discretion. Such matters can only properly be deponed to by the Applicant.
39. An advocate cannot, without descending into the arena of conflict, competently depose to such evidentiary matters.
40. Consequently, this ground is unsupported by proper evidential material. What is before the Court are, in effect, bare assertions from learned counsel devoid of probative value.
41. On that ground alone, the application is fatally deficient.
42. As noted above, the Applicant has submitted no medical reports, no doctor's notes, no official diagnosis, nor any documentary evidence whatsoever from a certified medical practitioner to substantiate this claim.
43. While medical conditions can be considered as a compassionate ground for bail review, the law demands an evidentiary baseline. In Republic v. Yagnesh Devani [2010] eKLR, it was held that medical grounds raised in bail applications must be backed by clear, credible medical documentation illustrating that the accused suffers from a condition that cannot be managed or treated within the prison infrastructure. Courts cannot act on mere statements from the bar regarding an accused person's health.
44. Mere verbal statements or blanket paragraphs in an affidavit alleging an ailment without accompanying certified medical reports, doctor's letters, or hospital logs cannot move a court of law to grant judicial relief. Courts process hard evidence, not speculative sentiment.
45. The Applicant has failed to present any verifiable medical documentation to support his claims, this ground fails for want of proof.
46. The State, under Section 74 of the Prisons Act (Cap 90), has a statutory obligation to provide comprehensive medical care to all inmates. In an instance where the Applicant requires medical attention, the correct procedural route is to mandate the prison authorities to ensure he receives the necessary treatment through the prison medical officer or a referral hospital, rather than utilizing unsubstantiated medical claims to bypass a solid grid of compelling reasons for pre-trial release.
VI. CONCLUSION
47. The power codified under Article 165(6), provides that the High Court holds supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and any other person, body, or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function.
48. This power should be exercised sparingly only when the lower court or tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. Further, for this Court to interfere, there must be a case of fragrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where the order has resulted in grave injustice.
49. The Trial Magistrate's decision was firmly grounded in facts, not whim or speculation. The record lacks documented leases, an economic anchor, or substantiated medical claims, while highlighting clear security risks and ongoing parallel investigations. The cumulative evidence provides powerful justification that outweighs the Applicant's prima facie right to pre-trial release.
50. I find no misdirection, error of principle, or injustice in the manner the lower court exercised its judicial discretion. Consequently, this Court cannot interfere with the trial court's orders.
51. Nonetheless, while the Applicant must remain in custody due to these established risks, the State cannot use the digital complexity of a cybercrime case as a license to keep the Applicant in remand indefinitely.
52. Article 50(2)(e) of the Constitution demands that a trial must begin and conclude without unreasonable delay. This Court takes judicial notice that the trial court has already fixed a firm hearing date for 13 th July 2026.
53. The State has been collecting data since November 2025. It has had more than sufficient time to compile its case. The proper way to balance the Applicant's rights with the public interest is to order an immediate, aggressive fast-track of the trial starting on that fixed date.
54. This Ruling was originally scheduled for delivery on 10 th July 2026. However, in light of the allegations of ill health and the urgent need to direct for medical examination, I deliver it today to facilitate that process.
VII. FINAL ORDERS
Consequent upon the above, this Court finds no merit in the Revision Application and disposes of the Application dated 20 th May 2026 through the following orders:
(a) The application to review and set aside the lower court orders declining to granting pre-trial bail is dismissed, and the order of the Learned Chief Magistrate in Kilifi CMCCR No. E659 of 2025 remanding the Applicant in custody is hereby upheld.
(b) The Officer-in-Charge Kilifi GK Prison is hereby ordered and directed to cause the Applicant to be examined by a certified Government Medical Officer within forty-eight (48) hours from today, to assess his health and provide any required clinical care within the state correctional facility.
(c) The Trial Court is hereby directed to rigorously proceed with the main trial starting on the scheduled hearing date of 13 th July 2026. The Trial court shall give this file maximum priority on its daily cause list, conducting a day-to-day hearing until conclusion.
(d) Right of appeal 14 days from today.
Orders accordingly.
Page 2 of 2
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. The Applicant moved this Court by way of a Notice of Motion application dated 20 th May 2026, preferred under Article 165(6) of the Constitution of Kenya and Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a revision of the lower court's decision in Kilifi CMCRC No. E659 of 2025 and an order to be admitted to bail or bond pending trial.
2. The application challenges the decision delivered by the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon. James N. Mwaniki, Chief Magistrate, on 4 th May 2026. By the said ruling, the learned Chief Magistrate dismissed the Applicant's application dated 29 th January 2026 which had moved the court to review its initial bail denial orders issued on 22 nd December 2025.
3. The application is supported by the grounds set out on the face of the Motion and supported by an Affidavit. The supporting affidavit is sworn by learned counsel on record for the Applicant, Mr. Angima.
4. The State/Respondent vehemently opposed the application. The Application proceeded by way of written submissions which this Court has fully considered.
5. The Applicant was arrested on 24 th November 2025 and arraigned before the Kilifi Chief Magistrate's Court on 27 th November 2025, facing the following infractions:
i) Count I: Money Laundering contrary to Section 3(a) as read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), where the Applicant allegedly engaged in an arrangement to transfer KES 3,782,515/= to himself through cell phone number 254723301000, with knowledge or reason to believe the funds constituted proceeds of crime.
ii) COUNT II: money laundering contrary to section 3(b)-1 as read with section 16 of the proceeds of crime and anti-money laundering act (POCAMLA), 2009, on diverse dates between January 2025 and November 2025 within the Republic of Kenya, the Applicant, allegedly knowingly concealed the source and recipient of funds amounting to KES 3,782,515/= while knowing or having reason to believe that the said funds were proceeds of crime, though obtaining money by false pretence, with the intent of concealing source and movement of the said proceeds.
The other counts are as follows;
iii) Count III : Obtaining Money by False Pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.
iv) Count IV: Obtaining Money by False Pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.
v) Count V: Conspiracy to Defraud contrary to Section 317 of the Penal Code.
vi) Count VI: Unauthorised Registration of SIM Card Using Another Person's Identity contrary to Section 17 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018.
vii) Count VII: Unauthorised Registration of SIM Card Using Another Person's Identity contrary to Section 17 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018.
6. On the face of it, these counts reveal that the Applicant stands charged with multiple counts of economic and cybercrime-related offenses. The counts trace an alleged syndicated financial and cyber enabled enterprise executed between January 2025 and November 2025.
II. THE APPLICANT’S CASE
7. The Applicant’s case is anchored on the grounds on the face of the Motion and the written submissions presented by Counsel for the Applicant. It was urged upon this Court that:
(a) The Applicant is a Kenyan citizen with a well-known place of abode.
(b) The Applicant has at all material times consistently cooperated with the investigating officers.
(c) All the offenses the Applicant is charged with are under local statutes inherently bailable.
(d) The State has failed to demonstrate any compelling reasons to warrant the severe curtailment of the Applicant's pretrial liberty, hence continuing to hold him violates his constitutional right to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
8. Further, Applicant advanced a plea of ill health, asserting through his pleadings that he is sickly and requires targeted medical attention outside the walls of the remand prison facility.
9. The learned counsel for the Applicant made this plea from the bar that the Applicant requires urgent medical attention, which they argue constitutes a distinct humanitarian ground for admission to bail.
10. To support the grounds as compelling to warrant pre-trial release, the applicant defined the legal contours of what constitutes a compelling reason, with the case of; Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [Bungoma HCCR Case No. 55 of 2009] , where Gikonyo J. stated that compelling reasons must be "forceful and convincing" and cannot be founded on flimsy grounds.
III. THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
11. As at the time of delivering this ruling, the State had not filed any responses to the Application before me. However, the State’s failure to file fresh submissions for the High Court Application does not stop the court from reviewing the case.
12. When evaluating applications for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court’s primary duty is to call for the and examine the trial Court records. The Court is invited to verify the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order made by the trial Court. Because the State’s lower court pleadings and charge sheets form part of the Court’s records, I will proceed to examine the same. State’s grounds of objection and the operational affidavits on record were also examined.
13. The State's pushback rests on two primary contentions:
i) First, that the original objection to bail is firmly rooted in the affidavit deposed by No. 95593 CPL James Ngotho, which brought to light the fact that the Applicant is a critical link in an ongoing multi-agency investigation involving sophisticated fraud where he systematically utilizes alternate names or aliases to evade tracking.
ii) Second, that the active investigation handled by the Economic and Commercial Crimes Unit under the DCI is sprawling and supported by multiple active judicial warrants.
14. The State submitted that releasing the Applicant into the digital space while investigations are ongoing would completely compromise forensic recovery.
15. The State urged the Court to sustain its earlier findings on the basis that the unique convergence of the Applicant’s circumstances creates an unmanageable flight risk, presents a legitimate threat to public order, and points to a systemic pattern of criminal conduct.
IV . ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
16. Having considered the Motion, the affidavits, the certified lower court records, and the written submissions by the Applicant, this Court distils two issues for determination:
i) Whether the learned Trial Magistrate exercised his judicial discretion judiciously and within proper legal parameters in finding that "compelling reasons" exist under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 to justify the denial of bail; and
ii) Whether unverified medical claims without accompanying clinical documentation can properly form a basis for a bail review or revision.
V. LEGAL ANALYSIS
i) Whether the learned Trial Magistrate exercised his judicial discretion judiciously and within proper legal parameters in finding that "compelling reasons" exist under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 to justify the denial of bail.
17. The legal regime governing the application of bail and bond is drawn from the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 75 of the laws of Kenya), the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, 2015 and case law or judicial precedents.
18. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya gives an arrested person the right to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
19. Admission to bail is an essential constitutional right under Article 49(1)(h), but it is not an absolute right. As rightly cited by the Applicant in Republic v Joktan Mayende,(supra) the reasons to deny bail must be forceful, convincing, and legally sound.
20. In Republic v Nuseiba Mohammed Haji Osman [2018] eKLR the Court stated,
inter alia that:
“Denial of a constitutional right is not a matter to be treated lightly and therefore any claims made against an accused person aimed at curtailing the constitutional right to liberty must not be made on speculation or conjecture.”
21. This Court, is therefore, invited to pronounce itself on all these constitutional and statutory principles regarding bail.
22. In measuring whether compelling reasons exist, this Court is guided by the statutory markers set out under Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which commands courts to evaluate the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character, antecedents, and associations of the accused, and the structural risks to the administration of justice.
23. It is therefore the duty of this Court to evaluate the Trial Court records and established whether the State has demonstrated compelling reasons within the matrix of Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code to justify the denial of bail.
Section 123A provides as follows;
(1) Subject to Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and notwithstanding section 123, in making a decision on bail and bond, the Court shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances and in particular—
(a) the nature or seriousness of the offence;
(b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused person;
(c) ………………………………. and;
(d) the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence;
24. It is well established law that the constitutional right to bail must be balanced against the broader interests of justice. The right to bail is not absolute and can be curtailed where there is a demonstrable risk of flight or interference with investigations. The Court of Appeal decision in Michael Juma Oyamo & another v Republic, (2019) JELR 99125 (CA) the court held that where an accused exhibits sophisticated operational capabilities or traces of using multiple identities, the risk of absconding is drastically heightened, constituting a compelling reason to deny bail.
25. A look at the lower court records reveals that the active investigations by the Economic and Commercial Crimes Unit under the DCI are supported by three substantive miscellaneous files:
i) Misc. Cr. Appl. No. E136 of 2025, which granted search warrants over the homes, vehicles, and electronic gadgets of the suspects.
ii) Misc. Cr. Appl. No. E093 of 2025, issued to trace and map numerous M-Pesa accounts linked to the enterprise.
iii) Misc. Cr. Appl. No. E101 of 2025, covering bank accounts and connected utility networks .
26. The State's core objection, as deposed by CPL James Ngotho, reveals that the Applicant systematically operates under different named to mask his identity while running these schemes. The charge sheet underscores this by showing counts where the Applicant allegedly used identity card details belonging to other citizens to register fraudulent SIM cards.
27. The Applicant has asserted that he is a Kenyan citizen with a well known place of abode. This court is therefore invited to cumulatively aassess whether or not he is a flight risk and/or likely to abscond.
28. The Applicant has placed significant reliance on a search warrant issued in parallel proceedings that the State itself has tracked them to specific physical addresses in Nakuru, Kisii, and Nairobi City Counties. On the face of it, this indicates extensive domestic presence serves as a physical anchor within the Republic.
29. While this Court notes that geographical mapping exists, the critical inquiry under the Judiciary Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, 2015 is not merely whether coordinates can be identified, but whether those coordinates represent a stable, traceable, and legally binding relationship between the accused person and a fixed locality.
30. Crucially, the Applicant has not submitted any documentary evidence of formal lease or tenancy agreements linking them to these properties.
31. In the absence of documented contractual obligations, a network of multiple rental properties spread across different regions does not signal permanent societal integration; rather, it indicates an extraordinary capacity for mobility and transience.
32. This structural fluidity must be viewed alongside the fact that the Applicant has no known source of legal livelihood or visible economic activity.
33. The case of Republic v. Joseph Kuria Irungu alias Jowie [2018] eKLR makes it clear that where an accused person exhibits a fluid living arrangement without documented or verifiable permanent domestic anchors, and lacks an identifiable legal source of income, the court is entitled to deduce the existence of a "flight persona."
34. As such, an accused person with no structural, vocational, or financial attachments to a specific locality poses an inherent risk of absconding.
ii) Whether unverified medical claims without accompanying clinical documentation can properly form a basis for a bail review or revision.
35. I now turn to the submissions that the Applicant requires urgent medical attention and should be released on bail to seek treatment.
36. The Applicant has strongly pleaded that he is a sickly person whose health condition demands medical intervention outside the custodial limits of the prison facility. This is deposed to in the supporting affidavit sworn by learned counsel on record for the Applicant, Mr. Angima.
37. The law on this point is settled. While an advocate is not absolutely barred from swearing an affidavit, such an affidavit is only permissible where the matters deponed to are either formal, uncontested, or within the advocate's personal knowledge.
38. Where, however, the affidavit traverses contested factual matters or matters that go to the substratum of this application, such deposition is improper. These are not peripheral or procedural matters. They go to the very foundation of the application and form the factual basis upon which the court is invited to exercise discretion. Such matters can only properly be deponed to by the Applicant.
39. An advocate cannot, without descending into the arena of conflict, competently depose to such evidentiary matters.
40. Consequently, this ground is unsupported by proper evidential material. What is before the Court are, in effect, bare assertions from learned counsel devoid of probative value.
41. On that ground alone, the application is fatally deficient.
42. As noted above, the Applicant has submitted no medical reports, no doctor's notes, no official diagnosis, nor any documentary evidence whatsoever from a certified medical practitioner to substantiate this claim.
43. While medical conditions can be considered as a compassionate ground for bail review, the law demands an evidentiary baseline. In Republic v. Yagnesh Devani [2010] eKLR, it was held that medical grounds raised in bail applications must be backed by clear, credible medical documentation illustrating that the accused suffers from a condition that cannot be managed or treated within the prison infrastructure. Courts cannot act on mere statements from the bar regarding an accused person's health.
44. Mere verbal statements or blanket paragraphs in an affidavit alleging an ailment without accompanying certified medical reports, doctor's letters, or hospital logs cannot move a court of law to grant judicial relief. Courts process hard evidence, not speculative sentiment.
45. The Applicant has failed to present any verifiable medical documentation to support his claims, this ground fails for want of proof.
46. The State, under Section 74 of the Prisons Act (Cap 90), has a statutory obligation to provide comprehensive medical care to all inmates. In an instance where the Applicant requires medical attention, the correct procedural route is to mandate the prison authorities to ensure he receives the necessary treatment through the prison medical officer or a referral hospital, rather than utilizing unsubstantiated medical claims to bypass a solid grid of compelling reasons for pre-trial release.
VI. CONCLUSION
47. The power codified under Article 165(6), provides that the High Court holds supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and any other person, body, or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function.
48. This power should be exercised sparingly only when the lower court or tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. Further, for this Court to interfere, there must be a case of fragrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where the order has resulted in grave injustice.
49. The Trial Magistrate's decision was firmly grounded in facts, not whim or speculation. The record lacks documented leases, an economic anchor, or substantiated medical claims, while highlighting clear security risks and ongoing parallel investigations. The cumulative evidence provides powerful justification that outweighs the Applicant's prima facie right to pre-trial release.
50. I find no misdirection, error of principle, or injustice in the manner the lower court exercised its judicial discretion. Consequently, this Court cannot interfere with the trial court's orders.
51. Nonetheless, while the Applicant must remain in custody due to these established risks, the State cannot use the digital complexity of a cybercrime case as a license to keep the Applicant in remand indefinitely.
52. Article 50(2)(e) of the Constitution demands that a trial must begin and conclude without unreasonable delay. This Court takes judicial notice that the trial court has already fixed a firm hearing date for 13 th July 2026.
53. The State has been collecting data since November 2025. It has had more than sufficient time to compile its case. The proper way to balance the Applicant's rights with the public interest is to order an immediate, aggressive fast-track of the trial starting on that fixed date.
54. This Ruling was originally scheduled for delivery on 10 th July 2026. However, in light of the allegations of ill health and the urgent need to direct for medical examination, I deliver it today to facilitate that process.
VII. FINAL ORDERS
Consequent upon the above, this Court finds no merit in the Revision Application and disposes of the Application dated 20 th May 2026 through the following orders:
(a) The application to review and set aside the lower court orders declining to granting pre-trial bail is dismissed, and the order of the Learned Chief Magistrate in Kilifi CMCCR No. E659 of 2025 remanding the Applicant in custody is hereby upheld.
(b) The Officer-in-Charge Kilifi GK Prison is hereby ordered and directed to cause the Applicant to be examined by a certified Government Medical Officer within forty-eight (48) hours from today, to assess his health and provide any required clinical care within the state correctional facility.
(c) The Trial Court is hereby directed to rigorously proceed with the main trial starting on the scheduled hearing date of 13 th July 2026. The Trial court shall give this file maximum priority on its daily cause list, conducting a day-to-day hearing until conclusion.
(d) Right of appeal 14 days from today.
Orders accordingly.
Page 2 of 2