1. Before me is the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2026 seeking a review of the bond terms imposed in Keroka PM's Criminal E546 of 2024. The Applicant contends that the bond set by the trial court is beyond his financial means and prays that this Court exercises its revisionary jurisdiction by reducing the same.
2. I have carefully considered the application together with the proceedings of the subordinate court which reveal that on 10th August 2023the Applicant sought a reduction of bond and upon considering his request, the learned trial magistrate reduced the bond to Kenya Shillings One Million (KES. 1,000,000).
3. The Applicant subsequently renewed his request for a further review of the bond terms. The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds that investigations were still ongoing and that not all suspects had been apprehended. Having considered those circumstances, the learned trial magistrate declined to interfere with the existing bond terms and directed that the question of any further review be revisited after the key prosecution witnesses had testified.
4. The proceedings of the trial court disclose that the learned magistrate took into account the circumstances then prevailing, including the stage of the investigations and the fact that key prosecution witnesses were yet to testify. Those were proper considerations bearing directly on the administration of justice and the preservation of the integrity of the trial. The decision to retain the existing bond terms was therefore founded on relevant considerations and reflected a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
5. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the learned magistrate misdirected himself in law, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to consider relevant matters or otherwise exercised his discretion injudiciously. Neither has he shown that there has been any material change in circumstances since the impugned ruling to warrant interference by this Court. The fact that the Applicant considers the bond terms beyond his reach, without more, is not a sufficient basis for a further review where those terms had already been revised by the trial court.
6. I am therefore not persuaded that this is a proper case for this Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court.
7. The Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2026 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The bond terms presently in force shall remain in place unless the trial court, upon a material change of circumstances, finds it appropriate to review them.
2. I have carefully considered the application together with the proceedings of the subordinate court which reveal that on 10th August 2023the Applicant sought a reduction of bond and upon considering his request, the learned trial magistrate reduced the bond to Kenya Shillings One Million (KES. 1,000,000).
3. The Applicant subsequently renewed his request for a further review of the bond terms. The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds that investigations were still ongoing and that not all suspects had been apprehended. Having considered those circumstances, the learned trial magistrate declined to interfere with the existing bond terms and directed that the question of any further review be revisited after the key prosecution witnesses had testified.
4. The proceedings of the trial court disclose that the learned magistrate took into account the circumstances then prevailing, including the stage of the investigations and the fact that key prosecution witnesses were yet to testify. Those were proper considerations bearing directly on the administration of justice and the preservation of the integrity of the trial. The decision to retain the existing bond terms was therefore founded on relevant considerations and reflected a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
5. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the learned magistrate misdirected himself in law, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to consider relevant matters or otherwise exercised his discretion injudiciously. Neither has he shown that there has been any material change in circumstances since the impugned ruling to warrant interference by this Court. The fact that the Applicant considers the bond terms beyond his reach, without more, is not a sufficient basis for a further review where those terms had already been revised by the trial court.
6. I am therefore not persuaded that this is a proper case for this Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court.
7. The Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2026 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The bond terms presently in force shall remain in place unless the trial court, upon a material change of circumstances, finds it appropriate to review them.