1. The Court is called upon to determine the Applicant’s Notice of Motion seeking review of bond terms , wherein the Applicant prayed that the bond earlier imposed of KSH 5,000,0000 be reviewed to bond of Kshs 300,000 or, in the alternative, cash bail of Kshs 150,000 .
2. The application is premised on the grounds that the bond terms imposed by the trial court were excessive, the Applicant has underlying medical conditions requiring treatment, and that the Applicant is not a flight risk.
Applicant’s Case
3. The Applicant contended that:
• The bond terms earlier imposed were beyond his financial means .
• He has a fixed place of abode and is willing to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court.
• He suffers
3. The application is supported by an affidavit and submissions wherein the Applicant contends that:
• The bond imposed is beyond the Applicant’s financial means .
• The Applicant suffers from documented medical conditions requiring consistent treatment and follow-up, which continued incarceration unduly prejudices.
• The Applicant has a fixed abode , known family ties, and has demonstrated willingness to attend court whenever required.
• No evidence has been placed before the Court showing that the Applicant is a flight risk or is likely to interfere with witnesses.
Respondent’s Objection
4. The Prosecution opposed the application, submitting that:
• The value of the subject property involved in the offence is high.
• The seriousness of the offence justifies the bond earlier imposed.
• Reducing bond would undermine the interests of justice.
• The trial court exercised it discretion correctly hence there is no need to revisit the same
Issues for Determination
5. The sole issue for determination is whether the Applicant has made out a case for review of bond terms .
BAIL REVIEW REPORT
The court called for and trviewed the trial record and a bail information repeort which has been availed and is positive,. It was prepared by MR S. Muthoka.
Applicable Law and Principles
6. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every 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.”
7. The Court is guided by the settled principle that bond is not meant to punish an accused person , but to secure their attendance at trial .
8. In Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR , the High Court held that:
“The primary purpose of bail or bond is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial, and not to punish the accused.”
9. Similarly, in Ng’ang’a v Republic [1985] KLR 451 , the Court emphasized that:
“The seriousness of the offence alone is not a sufficient reason to deny or impose excessive bail.”
10. The Court further notes the holding in Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR , where it was stated that bond terms must be reasonable, affordable, and proportionate , taking into account the personal circumstances of the accused.
11. While the value of the property involved may be a relevant consideration, it cannot, on its own , justify excessive bond terms where there is no demonstrated risk of absconding .
12. Medical grounds, when supported, are a relevant consideration in bond review, as recognized in Republic v Ahmed Mohamed Omar & 6 Others [2010] eKLR , particularly where continued detention would prejudice the accused’s health.
Analysis
13. In the present case, the Prosecution has not placed before the Court any material demonstrating that the Applicant is likely to abscond, interfere with witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
14. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated medical circumstances warranting consideration, and that the earlier bond terms are excessive in relation to the objective sought to be achieved .
15. This Court reiterates that the primary consideration remains attendance at trial , which can be adequately secured by reasonable and proportionate bond terms.
Determination
16. In the exercise of this Court’s discretion, and guided by the Constitution and the cited authorities, the application is merited .
Orders
17. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
a. The bond terms earlier imposed requiring bond of Kshs 5,000,000 are hereby reviewed and set aside .
b. The Applicant shall be released on:
• Bond of Kshs 500,000 with one surety of a similar amount and one extra Kenyan contact person who should avail their Kenyan passport or identity card, a photograph and telephone contacts.
OR
• Cash bail of Kshs 300,000 , plus two Kenyan contact persons , who should avail copies their Kenyan passports or identity cards, a photograph and telephone contacts.
• The applicant should also surrender his passport in court with 7 days of his release from custody and he should not leave the jurisdiction without the knowledge and leave of the court.
c. The Applicant shall attend court whenever required and shall not interfere with witnesses.
d. Any breach of the bond terms shall lead to cancellation of bond.
18. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.
WENDY KAGENDO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PUBLISHED ON LINE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN OPEN COURT
2. The application is premised on the grounds that the bond terms imposed by the trial court were excessive, the Applicant has underlying medical conditions requiring treatment, and that the Applicant is not a flight risk.
Applicant’s Case
3. The Applicant contended that:
• The bond terms earlier imposed were beyond his financial means .
• He has a fixed place of abode and is willing to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court.
• He suffers
3. The application is supported by an affidavit and submissions wherein the Applicant contends that:
• The bond imposed is beyond the Applicant’s financial means .
• The Applicant suffers from documented medical conditions requiring consistent treatment and follow-up, which continued incarceration unduly prejudices.
• The Applicant has a fixed abode , known family ties, and has demonstrated willingness to attend court whenever required.
• No evidence has been placed before the Court showing that the Applicant is a flight risk or is likely to interfere with witnesses.
Respondent’s Objection
4. The Prosecution opposed the application, submitting that:
• The value of the subject property involved in the offence is high.
• The seriousness of the offence justifies the bond earlier imposed.
• Reducing bond would undermine the interests of justice.
• The trial court exercised it discretion correctly hence there is no need to revisit the same
Issues for Determination
5. The sole issue for determination is whether the Applicant has made out a case for review of bond terms .
BAIL REVIEW REPORT
The court called for and trviewed the trial record and a bail information repeort which has been availed and is positive,. It was prepared by MR S. Muthoka.
Applicable Law and Principles
6. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every 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.”
7. The Court is guided by the settled principle that bond is not meant to punish an accused person , but to secure their attendance at trial .
8. In Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR , the High Court held that:
“The primary purpose of bail or bond is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial, and not to punish the accused.”
9. Similarly, in Ng’ang’a v Republic [1985] KLR 451 , the Court emphasized that:
“The seriousness of the offence alone is not a sufficient reason to deny or impose excessive bail.”
10. The Court further notes the holding in Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR , where it was stated that bond terms must be reasonable, affordable, and proportionate , taking into account the personal circumstances of the accused.
11. While the value of the property involved may be a relevant consideration, it cannot, on its own , justify excessive bond terms where there is no demonstrated risk of absconding .
12. Medical grounds, when supported, are a relevant consideration in bond review, as recognized in Republic v Ahmed Mohamed Omar & 6 Others [2010] eKLR , particularly where continued detention would prejudice the accused’s health.
Analysis
13. In the present case, the Prosecution has not placed before the Court any material demonstrating that the Applicant is likely to abscond, interfere with witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
14. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated medical circumstances warranting consideration, and that the earlier bond terms are excessive in relation to the objective sought to be achieved .
15. This Court reiterates that the primary consideration remains attendance at trial , which can be adequately secured by reasonable and proportionate bond terms.
Determination
16. In the exercise of this Court’s discretion, and guided by the Constitution and the cited authorities, the application is merited .
Orders
17. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
a. The bond terms earlier imposed requiring bond of Kshs 5,000,000 are hereby reviewed and set aside .
b. The Applicant shall be released on:
• Bond of Kshs 500,000 with one surety of a similar amount and one extra Kenyan contact person who should avail their Kenyan passport or identity card, a photograph and telephone contacts.
OR
• Cash bail of Kshs 300,000 , plus two Kenyan contact persons , who should avail copies their Kenyan passports or identity cards, a photograph and telephone contacts.
• The applicant should also surrender his passport in court with 7 days of his release from custody and he should not leave the jurisdiction without the knowledge and leave of the court.
c. The Applicant shall attend court whenever required and shall not interfere with witnesses.
d. Any breach of the bond terms shall lead to cancellation of bond.
18. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.
WENDY KAGENDO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PUBLISHED ON LINE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN OPEN COURT