REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E017 OF 2026
DENG AWUOL KUOL..…………………………..………………….…………………………….APPLICANT -VERSUS
REPUBLIC.…………………....……………………………………..........................................…………RESPONDENT
Ruling
1.By his dated and brought under the provisions of Articles 49 (1) (h), 50 (1), 50 (2)(a) & (c) and 159 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Sections 283, 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya and all enabling provisions of the law, the applicant beseeches the court to grant to him bail pending on reasonable conditions, including a condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court pending the trial, shall report to the Executive officer of the Court once every two weeks and that he undertake to attend Court proceedings as may be required by the Court. There is also a prayer that the court be pleased stay the proceedings in Kakuma MCTR No. E028 of 2026 Republic vs. Deng Kuol pending the hearing and determination of this Application then calls for the record for purposes of satisfying itself on the correctness, legality and/or propriety of the Ruling as well as the Orders of Hon. Shivega Victor (RM) made on 28th July, 2026, under its revisionary jurisdiction.
2.The application is grounded on the facts that on 11th June, 2026, the Applicant, while riding a motorcycle registration number KMGH 511A along Kakuma Lokichoggio Highway, was involved in a road traffic accident with motor vehicle registration number KCM 002S driven by one Samuel Ekero. The Applicant was carrying one Pillion Passenger namely, Anyieth Garang Akueng who unfortunately succumb to her injuries. On the same day, the Police issued a Notice of Intention to Prosecute to both the Applicant and the Driver of the said motor vehicle registration number KCM 002S and subsequently, the Applicant was arrested and released on cash bail of Kshs. 20,000.00. Through out the investigations, until his arrangement in Court, the Applicant had been attending to the police whenever he was required to attend. There was never a single day he absconded and/or failed to appear as requested. On 22nd July, 2026, the accused person was charge with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to Section 46 of the Traffic Act Cap 403 of the Laws of Kenya. He thereafter took a plea and denied all charges against him.
3.During the hearing of bail application, the character of the accused person was brought to the attention of the Court, to wit, the accused was out on cash bail of kshs. 20,000.00 and that he had never absconded or skip bail. In the circumstances, it was urged that the said cash bail of Kshs. 20,000.00 be adopted by the Court. With the concurrence by the DPP, the accused was admitted to cash bail of Kshs. 20,000.00 or in the alternative a bond of Kshs. 100,000.00.
4.Later the complainant wrote a letter to the Court on 27th July, 2026 informing the Court that he was, not only not happy with the accused being out on bail but also, that he had information to the effect that the accused wanted to flee the jurisdiction as he had disposed of his property.
5.On the 28th July, 2026, the trial magistrate examined the allegation and indeed found that the said allegations were not backed by evidence and hence agreed with the accused submissions that he had not sold his property and that he does not intend to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. The accused submissions were supported by the fact that he was present in Court on 28th July, 2026 albeit on short notice.
6.However, the applicant was surprised when the Court issued its Final Orders, not supported by the reasoning in the ruling by altering the orders of the Court made on 22nd July, 2026 admitting the accused to bail/bond and instead ordering that the same be reviewed and set aside. In addition, it was ordered that the cash bail deposited in Court to be release to the Depositor and the Probation Officer to prepare and file a pre-bail report for consideration of the bail terms.
7.The trial court is faulted to have failed to consider the facts or evidence before it and the nature of the offence noting that there is another person of interest that the DPP is yet to charge. It is then stressed that there was no Affidavit before the Court that would have persuaded the Trial Magistrate to review its earlier orders that were issued in the presence of the prosecutor. The decision is viewed to have been made merely on suspicion and emotions not supported by law and evidence. It is then argued that in the circumstances, there was never cogent or specific evidence to justify the review and/or setting aside of the bail and/or bond terms issued on 22nd July, 2026.
8.In any event, it is argued, Applicant will not interfere with the witnesses and is not a flight risks as he has a known fixed abode as clearly stipulated in his Refugee GOK Proof of Registration; he is a father and sole breadwinner to his family whose wife and children that depends upon. As a result of the cancelled bond, the family continues to suffer as he is unable to take care of the family while in remand. It is then highlighted that the Applicant is also taking care of children who are of tender years, is not a threat and have no previous criminal records.
9.It was therefore argued that it is in the best interest of justice that the Applicants herein be admitted to a reasonable bail or bond terms pending the hearing and determination of the case because no prejudice would be suffered by the Respondent in the event the orders are granted for purposes of the Application herein.
10.Even though the applicant seeks to be granted bail pending trial, the straighter route is the prayer 3 seeking the outright revision of the order by which the trial court cancelled the applicants bond.
11.The court takes the view and regards the application to seek the call and perusal of the trial court file. That has ben done, the file perused and the recorded proceeding duly appreciated.
12.When to cancelled an accused bond is now a well-trodden path. The court ought to be fully satisfied that the accused has breached it bond terms or has otherwise acted in a manner to suggest he no longer intends to observe the bond terms.
13.In this matter, the trial court found as a fact that there was no proof of disposal or intension to dispose his assets and or leave jurisdiction. With such finding, there was no justification to arrive at the decision it did. Because the decision was made on no legal basis, the court finds it to have been incorrect.
14.This court is satisfied that the decision to cancel the bond was not born out of the evidence and materials presented to court to warrant the very drastic measure by the court, depriving the applicant of a constitutional right to bail.
15.On that basis the decision is revised to the effect that the order cancelling the bond is set aside and the bond terms enjoyed by the applicant are restored pending the hearing and determination of the case.
Dated, signed and delivered Virtually, this day of 2oth day of August, 2025.
Patrick J O Otieno
Judge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E017 OF 2026
DENG AWUOL KUOL..…………………………..………………….…………………………….APPLICANT -VERSUS
REPUBLIC.…………………....……………………………………..........................................…………RESPONDENT
Ruling
1.By his dated and brought under the provisions of Articles 49 (1) (h), 50 (1), 50 (2)(a) & (c) and 159 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Sections 283, 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya and all enabling provisions of the law, the applicant beseeches the court to grant to him bail pending on reasonable conditions, including a condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court pending the trial, shall report to the Executive officer of the Court once every two weeks and that he undertake to attend Court proceedings as may be required by the Court. There is also a prayer that the court be pleased stay the proceedings in Kakuma MCTR No. E028 of 2026 Republic vs. Deng Kuol pending the hearing and determination of this Application then calls for the record for purposes of satisfying itself on the correctness, legality and/or propriety of the Ruling as well as the Orders of Hon. Shivega Victor (RM) made on 28th July, 2026, under its revisionary jurisdiction.
2.The application is grounded on the facts that on 11th June, 2026, the Applicant, while riding a motorcycle registration number KMGH 511A along Kakuma Lokichoggio Highway, was involved in a road traffic accident with motor vehicle registration number KCM 002S driven by one Samuel Ekero. The Applicant was carrying one Pillion Passenger namely, Anyieth Garang Akueng who unfortunately succumb to her injuries. On the same day, the Police issued a Notice of Intention to Prosecute to both the Applicant and the Driver of the said motor vehicle registration number KCM 002S and subsequently, the Applicant was arrested and released on cash bail of Kshs. 20,000.00. Through out the investigations, until his arrangement in Court, the Applicant had been attending to the police whenever he was required to attend. There was never a single day he absconded and/or failed to appear as requested. On 22nd July, 2026, the accused person was charge with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to Section 46 of the Traffic Act Cap 403 of the Laws of Kenya. He thereafter took a plea and denied all charges against him.
3.During the hearing of bail application, the character of the accused person was brought to the attention of the Court, to wit, the accused was out on cash bail of kshs. 20,000.00 and that he had never absconded or skip bail. In the circumstances, it was urged that the said cash bail of Kshs. 20,000.00 be adopted by the Court. With the concurrence by the DPP, the accused was admitted to cash bail of Kshs. 20,000.00 or in the alternative a bond of Kshs. 100,000.00.
4.Later the complainant wrote a letter to the Court on 27th July, 2026 informing the Court that he was, not only not happy with the accused being out on bail but also, that he had information to the effect that the accused wanted to flee the jurisdiction as he had disposed of his property.
5.On the 28th July, 2026, the trial magistrate examined the allegation and indeed found that the said allegations were not backed by evidence and hence agreed with the accused submissions that he had not sold his property and that he does not intend to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. The accused submissions were supported by the fact that he was present in Court on 28th July, 2026 albeit on short notice.
6.However, the applicant was surprised when the Court issued its Final Orders, not supported by the reasoning in the ruling by altering the orders of the Court made on 22nd July, 2026 admitting the accused to bail/bond and instead ordering that the same be reviewed and set aside. In addition, it was ordered that the cash bail deposited in Court to be release to the Depositor and the Probation Officer to prepare and file a pre-bail report for consideration of the bail terms.
7.The trial court is faulted to have failed to consider the facts or evidence before it and the nature of the offence noting that there is another person of interest that the DPP is yet to charge. It is then stressed that there was no Affidavit before the Court that would have persuaded the Trial Magistrate to review its earlier orders that were issued in the presence of the prosecutor. The decision is viewed to have been made merely on suspicion and emotions not supported by law and evidence. It is then argued that in the circumstances, there was never cogent or specific evidence to justify the review and/or setting aside of the bail and/or bond terms issued on 22nd July, 2026.
8.In any event, it is argued, Applicant will not interfere with the witnesses and is not a flight risks as he has a known fixed abode as clearly stipulated in his Refugee GOK Proof of Registration; he is a father and sole breadwinner to his family whose wife and children that depends upon. As a result of the cancelled bond, the family continues to suffer as he is unable to take care of the family while in remand. It is then highlighted that the Applicant is also taking care of children who are of tender years, is not a threat and have no previous criminal records.
9.It was therefore argued that it is in the best interest of justice that the Applicants herein be admitted to a reasonable bail or bond terms pending the hearing and determination of the case because no prejudice would be suffered by the Respondent in the event the orders are granted for purposes of the Application herein.
10.Even though the applicant seeks to be granted bail pending trial, the straighter route is the prayer 3 seeking the outright revision of the order by which the trial court cancelled the applicants bond.
11.The court takes the view and regards the application to seek the call and perusal of the trial court file. That has ben done, the file perused and the recorded proceeding duly appreciated.
12.When to cancelled an accused bond is now a well-trodden path. The court ought to be fully satisfied that the accused has breached it bond terms or has otherwise acted in a manner to suggest he no longer intends to observe the bond terms.
13.In this matter, the trial court found as a fact that there was no proof of disposal or intension to dispose his assets and or leave jurisdiction. With such finding, there was no justification to arrive at the decision it did. Because the decision was made on no legal basis, the court finds it to have been incorrect.
14.This court is satisfied that the decision to cancel the bond was not born out of the evidence and materials presented to court to warrant the very drastic measure by the court, depriving the applicant of a constitutional right to bail.
15.On that basis the decision is revised to the effect that the order cancelling the bond is set aside and the bond terms enjoyed by the applicant are restored pending the hearing and determination of the case.
Dated, signed and delivered Virtually, this day of 2oth day of August, 2025.
Patrick J O Otieno
Judge