'
This court on the 15 th August 2025 gave orders releasing the applicants on bail pending the outcome of investigations that were being undertaken by the Anti -Terrorism Police Unit and the decision to charge by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The orders on bail were that each of the applicants was required to deposit Kshs.100,000 each and as a further condition deposit their passports in court.
The ODPP has indicated that investigations are complete and a decision to charge has been made thus the instant file should be closed and the passports released to the Anti -Terrorism Police Unit of the National Police Service.
According to Mr.Omondi, the passports are intended to be used as exhibits in the intended trial of the 7 th applicant who is to be charged with offences related to trafficking in persons.
The court made the orders for release of the applicants on bail in a bid to promote and uphold the right to liberty under Article 38.
The holding of the foreigners passports was meant to ensure that they are not able to leave the jurisdiction of this court pending the investigations.
It has now been indicated by the prosecution that a decision to charge has been made thus the motion dated 18 th September 2025 is hereby spent and thus the instant file should be closed.
I have considered the application dated the 9 th October 2025 the supporting affidavit and all the annextures thereto.
Ms Ogega in the certificate accompanying the Notice of motion indicated that the 7 th applicant has already been charged in Kahawa Law Courts and objected to the taking plea citing the pendency of the instant motion
It was on that basis that counsel sought the release of the passports to the investigating officer for use in the criminal trial.
It is not contested by the 7 th applicant that there are proceedings pending on Kahawa Law courts.
The only argument advanced by the 5 th and 7 th applicants in the original motion is that they need to have their passports released to them for purposes of visa renewal.
Mr. Omondi for the state objected to that prayer arguing that the 5 th and 7 th applicants can still apply for the renewal of the visas while the passports are in the custody of the investigating officer. How that is possible baffles me since the applicants need to appear at the visa renewal desk in person with the original passport. Mr Omondi was not helpful to this court as to how the renewal would be done with the assistance of the investigating officer.
It is thus not tenable to argue that since there are criminal proceedings about to commence the passports of the applicants be confiscated and that they should not be allowed the window to process new visas. That would be a very draconian position to hold and it flies in the face of the applicants right of freedom from discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution.
The applicants including 5 th and 7 th applicants have their presumption of innocence right under Article 50 (2) of the constitution until they are proven to be guilty of any charge.
To withhold their passports in a manner that would deprive them the opportunity to renew their passports would be inhumane and contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution and the right to human dignity must be respected and protected.
The 5 th and 7 th applicants have every right to be accorded human dignity by giving them an opportunity to renew their visas. If the court was to order the release of their passport to the ATPU, how would they be able to obtain them for the purposes of visa renewal?
It is important to highlight the fact that the 5 th and 7 th applicants are still innocent in the eyes of the law thus they must be left to enjoy all their rights without unnecessary intereference by the investigators.
The court is alive to the fact that for them to remain in the country their visas require renewal thus the need for the passports. If they entered the country with valid visas to deny them a chance to renew would be to set them up for being accused of being in the country illegally.
Further, if the 5 th and 7 th applicants are foreigners then how do they continue residing in Kenya without a valid visa? The denial of access to their passports would complicate their status in the country thus the need to ensure that they get an opportunity to renew.
In the end, the court finds that to deny them the opportunity to renew their visa would amount to the psychological torture contrary to Article 29 (d) of the constitution. The state still retains the discretion to grant or disallow the intended extension.
The prosecution has indicated that it requires the passports for purposes of using them in evidence. The 5 th and 7 th applicant can therefore have the passports released to their counsel who shall execute a professional undertaking that he shall hand them over to the ATPU investigators immediately after the visas are renewed.
Accordingly, the orders that this court grants are that;-
Cash bail of Kshs. 100,000 deposited by each of the applicants is to be returned to the depositors.
The passports of the rest of the applicants other than 5 th and 7 th applicant be released to the investigator.
The counsel for the 5 th and 7 th applicant shall execute a professional undertaking to surrender the passports of 5 th and 7 th applicants to the Investigating officer upon renewal of the visas.
The passports for the 5 th and 7 th applicant be released to Mr. Reene Advocate upon providing the undertaking in (c) above to the Deputy Registrar of this court.
Mr Reene advocate is to ensure that the 7 th applicant appears before the Kahawa court the court for purposes of plea on 27 th October 2025
Mention of this matter on 28 th October 2025 to confirm compliance.
It is so ordered.
'
This court on the 15 th August 2025 gave orders releasing the applicants on bail pending the outcome of investigations that were being undertaken by the Anti -Terrorism Police Unit and the decision to charge by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The orders on bail were that each of the applicants was required to deposit Kshs.100,000 each and as a further condition deposit their passports in court.
The ODPP has indicated that investigations are complete and a decision to charge has been made thus the instant file should be closed and the passports released to the Anti -Terrorism Police Unit of the National Police Service.
According to Mr.Omondi, the passports are intended to be used as exhibits in the intended trial of the 7 th applicant who is to be charged with offences related to trafficking in persons.
The court made the orders for release of the applicants on bail in a bid to promote and uphold the right to liberty under Article 38.
The holding of the foreigners passports was meant to ensure that they are not able to leave the jurisdiction of this court pending the investigations.
It has now been indicated by the prosecution that a decision to charge has been made thus the motion dated 18 th September 2025 is hereby spent and thus the instant file should be closed.
I have considered the application dated the 9 th October 2025 the supporting affidavit and all the annextures thereto.
Ms Ogega in the certificate accompanying the Notice of motion indicated that the 7 th applicant has already been charged in Kahawa Law Courts and objected to the taking plea citing the pendency of the instant motion
It was on that basis that counsel sought the release of the passports to the investigating officer for use in the criminal trial.
It is not contested by the 7 th applicant that there are proceedings pending on Kahawa Law courts.
The only argument advanced by the 5 th and 7 th applicants in the original motion is that they need to have their passports released to them for purposes of visa renewal.
Mr. Omondi for the state objected to that prayer arguing that the 5 th and 7 th applicants can still apply for the renewal of the visas while the passports are in the custody of the investigating officer. How that is possible baffles me since the applicants need to appear at the visa renewal desk in person with the original passport. Mr Omondi was not helpful to this court as to how the renewal would be done with the assistance of the investigating officer.
It is thus not tenable to argue that since there are criminal proceedings about to commence the passports of the applicants be confiscated and that they should not be allowed the window to process new visas. That would be a very draconian position to hold and it flies in the face of the applicants right of freedom from discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution.
The applicants including 5 th and 7 th applicants have their presumption of innocence right under Article 50 (2) of the constitution until they are proven to be guilty of any charge.
To withhold their passports in a manner that would deprive them the opportunity to renew their passports would be inhumane and contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution and the right to human dignity must be respected and protected.
The 5 th and 7 th applicants have every right to be accorded human dignity by giving them an opportunity to renew their visas. If the court was to order the release of their passport to the ATPU, how would they be able to obtain them for the purposes of visa renewal?
It is important to highlight the fact that the 5 th and 7 th applicants are still innocent in the eyes of the law thus they must be left to enjoy all their rights without unnecessary intereference by the investigators.
The court is alive to the fact that for them to remain in the country their visas require renewal thus the need for the passports. If they entered the country with valid visas to deny them a chance to renew would be to set them up for being accused of being in the country illegally.
Further, if the 5 th and 7 th applicants are foreigners then how do they continue residing in Kenya without a valid visa? The denial of access to their passports would complicate their status in the country thus the need to ensure that they get an opportunity to renew.
In the end, the court finds that to deny them the opportunity to renew their visa would amount to the psychological torture contrary to Article 29 (d) of the constitution. The state still retains the discretion to grant or disallow the intended extension.
The prosecution has indicated that it requires the passports for purposes of using them in evidence. The 5 th and 7 th applicant can therefore have the passports released to their counsel who shall execute a professional undertaking that he shall hand them over to the ATPU investigators immediately after the visas are renewed.
Accordingly, the orders that this court grants are that;-
Cash bail of Kshs. 100,000 deposited by each of the applicants is to be returned to the depositors.
The passports of the rest of the applicants other than 5 th and 7 th applicant be released to the investigator.
The counsel for the 5 th and 7 th applicant shall execute a professional undertaking to surrender the passports of 5 th and 7 th applicants to the Investigating officer upon renewal of the visas.
The passports for the 5 th and 7 th applicant be released to Mr. Reene Advocate upon providing the undertaking in (c) above to the Deputy Registrar of this court.
Mr Reene advocate is to ensure that the 7 th applicant appears before the Kahawa court the court for purposes of plea on 27 th October 2025
Mention of this matter on 28 th October 2025 to confirm compliance.
It is so ordered.
'