1. This ruling concerns an application for review of bond/bail terms by the applicants, who are charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The court called for Bail Information Reports in respect of each applicant. Reports were filed for:
1) Z.M.O dated 19th March 2026;
2) Halliet Kerubo Onyango dated 19th March 2026;
3) D.B.N dated 23rd March 2026;
4) Angerah Moraa Momanyi dated 19th March 2026; and
5) Angela Chibalonza Ombui dated 19th March 2026.
2. This court has considered the application, the material on record, and the contents of the said reports.
3. The court notes that Z.M.O and D.B.N are minors aged 17 and 16 years respectively, while the rest are young adults. The minors shall be referred to by initials in keeping with the law on protection of children.
4. The issue for determination is whether the applicants have established sufficient grounds for review of the existing bond/bail terms.
5. The right to bail is guaranteed under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, while the applicants enjoy the presumption of innocence under Article 50(2)(a).
6. Z.M.O and D.B.N, being minors, are further entitled to the protections under Article 53(1)(f) and Article 53(2), including the principle that the best interests of the child are of paramount importance.
7. The court is also alive to the rights of the applicants, as well as those of other students, including the right to dignity, the right to security of the person and the right to education under Articles 28, 29 and 43 of the Constitution.
8. The Bail Information Reports relating to all the applicants are consistent. They establish that the applicants are first offenders, are not flight risks, and have family support structures.
9. The principal concern emerging from the reports relates to the school environment, particularly the need to prevent tension, distress and possible interference with witnesses.
10. The reports further indicate that there is no objection to the applicants continuing with their education, provided appropriate safeguards are put in place.
11. All the applicants are students and have expressed a desire to continue with their education and sit for their KCSE examinations. The court finds that, as persons presumed innocent, the applicants are entitled to continue enjoying their constitutional rights, including the right to education. At the same time, the court must ensure that the learning environment for other students remains safe and conducive.
12. The court is satisfied that these competing interests can be balanced through structured conditions, supervision and counselling measures.
13. In respect of Z.M.O and D.B.N, the court is guided by the principle of the best interests of the child and finds that continued detention or unduly restrictive terms would not serve those interests.
14. The reports further demonstrate that the applicants’ families face financial constraints and are unable to meet the existing bond terms. Bail terms must not be set at a level that results in the practical denial of the right to bail.
15. The Probation Officer in all the reports recommends that the applicants are suitable for release on reviewed bond/bail terms and this Court finds no compelling reasons to maintain the existing bond terms.
16. The court has also considered the views expressed by the school authorities and the wider school community that the applicants should not return to Magena Girls Secondary School during the pendency of the trial. Those views are grounded on concerns relating to safety, emotional well-being, and the need to safeguard potential witnesses within the school environment. The court finds that such concerns are legitimate and fall within the constitutional rights of other students, including the right to dignity under Article 28, the right to security of the person under Article 29, and the right to education under Article 43(1)(f), which includes the right to a safe and conducive learning environment.
17. The court is also cognizant of the psychological dimensions of the matter, including the risk of trauma, stigma, intimidation, possible re-traumatization, and fear of reprisal affecting both the applicants and other students within the school community.
18. The circumstances giving rise to the charge are of a sensitive nature, and premature or unmanaged interaction within the same school environment may exacerbate emotional distress, heighten tension, create apprehension among potential witnesses, and undermine the well-being and sense of safety of all affected students. The court therefore considers it necessary that any reintegration or continued schooling be undertaken within a structured and supportive framework that incorporates counselling, psychosocial support, and appropriate supervision, so as to safeguard the dignity, security, and mental well-being of all concerned while preserving the integrity of the trial.
19. At the same time, the applicants, being presumed innocent, are entitled to the full enjoyment of their constitutional rights, including the right to education. In the case of the minors, this must further be read together with Article 53(2) on the best interests of the child. The appropriate balance is therefore not exclusion from education, but regulated participation through structured measures that protect all students while allowing the applicants to continue their schooling:
20. Consequently, this Court finds that the application for review of bond/bail terms is merited. The court therefore makes the following orders:
1) The existing bond/bail terms are hereby reviewed and set aside.
2) Each applicant is hereby admitted to bond in the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand (KES. 100,000) with one surety of a like sum.
3) Upon release, each applicant shall continue with their education, and their respective parents or guardians shall ensure that appropriate arrangements for schooling are made and notified to the court within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.
4) Each applicant shall have no contact, directly or indirectly, with prosecution witnesses, save within structured and supervised school settings where necessary.
5) Each applicant shall reside at a disclosed place of residence and shall not change residence without leave of the court.
6) Each applicant shall attend court as and when required until the conclusion of the trial.
7) In respect of the minors Z.M.O and D.B.N, they shall be placed under the supervision of the Children’s Officer within their respective areas of schooling and residence.
8) The Children’s Officer shall file monthly supervision reports before this court until further orders.
9) The respective schools attended by the applicants shall facilitate counselling and psychosocial support for both the applicants and other affected students, and shall ensure that a safe and conducive learning environment is maintained for all.
10) This matter shall be mentioned on 22nd April 2026 for purposes of confirming compliance with these orders. The applicants shall not be required to attend the mention if they shall have been released on bond.
11) This matter is scheduled for hearing on 11th and 12th May 2026. The parties are hereby directed to ensure full preparedness, this being a matter involving minors, so as to facilitate the hearing proceeding and concluding without delay.
1) Z.M.O dated 19th March 2026;
2) Halliet Kerubo Onyango dated 19th March 2026;
3) D.B.N dated 23rd March 2026;
4) Angerah Moraa Momanyi dated 19th March 2026; and
5) Angela Chibalonza Ombui dated 19th March 2026.
2. This court has considered the application, the material on record, and the contents of the said reports.
3. The court notes that Z.M.O and D.B.N are minors aged 17 and 16 years respectively, while the rest are young adults. The minors shall be referred to by initials in keeping with the law on protection of children.
4. The issue for determination is whether the applicants have established sufficient grounds for review of the existing bond/bail terms.
5. The right to bail is guaranteed under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, while the applicants enjoy the presumption of innocence under Article 50(2)(a).
6. Z.M.O and D.B.N, being minors, are further entitled to the protections under Article 53(1)(f) and Article 53(2), including the principle that the best interests of the child are of paramount importance.
7. The court is also alive to the rights of the applicants, as well as those of other students, including the right to dignity, the right to security of the person and the right to education under Articles 28, 29 and 43 of the Constitution.
8. The Bail Information Reports relating to all the applicants are consistent. They establish that the applicants are first offenders, are not flight risks, and have family support structures.
9. The principal concern emerging from the reports relates to the school environment, particularly the need to prevent tension, distress and possible interference with witnesses.
10. The reports further indicate that there is no objection to the applicants continuing with their education, provided appropriate safeguards are put in place.
11. All the applicants are students and have expressed a desire to continue with their education and sit for their KCSE examinations. The court finds that, as persons presumed innocent, the applicants are entitled to continue enjoying their constitutional rights, including the right to education. At the same time, the court must ensure that the learning environment for other students remains safe and conducive.
12. The court is satisfied that these competing interests can be balanced through structured conditions, supervision and counselling measures.
13. In respect of Z.M.O and D.B.N, the court is guided by the principle of the best interests of the child and finds that continued detention or unduly restrictive terms would not serve those interests.
14. The reports further demonstrate that the applicants’ families face financial constraints and are unable to meet the existing bond terms. Bail terms must not be set at a level that results in the practical denial of the right to bail.
15. The Probation Officer in all the reports recommends that the applicants are suitable for release on reviewed bond/bail terms and this Court finds no compelling reasons to maintain the existing bond terms.
16. The court has also considered the views expressed by the school authorities and the wider school community that the applicants should not return to Magena Girls Secondary School during the pendency of the trial. Those views are grounded on concerns relating to safety, emotional well-being, and the need to safeguard potential witnesses within the school environment. The court finds that such concerns are legitimate and fall within the constitutional rights of other students, including the right to dignity under Article 28, the right to security of the person under Article 29, and the right to education under Article 43(1)(f), which includes the right to a safe and conducive learning environment.
17. The court is also cognizant of the psychological dimensions of the matter, including the risk of trauma, stigma, intimidation, possible re-traumatization, and fear of reprisal affecting both the applicants and other students within the school community.
18. The circumstances giving rise to the charge are of a sensitive nature, and premature or unmanaged interaction within the same school environment may exacerbate emotional distress, heighten tension, create apprehension among potential witnesses, and undermine the well-being and sense of safety of all affected students. The court therefore considers it necessary that any reintegration or continued schooling be undertaken within a structured and supportive framework that incorporates counselling, psychosocial support, and appropriate supervision, so as to safeguard the dignity, security, and mental well-being of all concerned while preserving the integrity of the trial.
19. At the same time, the applicants, being presumed innocent, are entitled to the full enjoyment of their constitutional rights, including the right to education. In the case of the minors, this must further be read together with Article 53(2) on the best interests of the child. The appropriate balance is therefore not exclusion from education, but regulated participation through structured measures that protect all students while allowing the applicants to continue their schooling:
20. Consequently, this Court finds that the application for review of bond/bail terms is merited. The court therefore makes the following orders:
1) The existing bond/bail terms are hereby reviewed and set aside.
2) Each applicant is hereby admitted to bond in the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand (KES. 100,000) with one surety of a like sum.
3) Upon release, each applicant shall continue with their education, and their respective parents or guardians shall ensure that appropriate arrangements for schooling are made and notified to the court within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.
4) Each applicant shall have no contact, directly or indirectly, with prosecution witnesses, save within structured and supervised school settings where necessary.
5) Each applicant shall reside at a disclosed place of residence and shall not change residence without leave of the court.
6) Each applicant shall attend court as and when required until the conclusion of the trial.
7) In respect of the minors Z.M.O and D.B.N, they shall be placed under the supervision of the Children’s Officer within their respective areas of schooling and residence.
8) The Children’s Officer shall file monthly supervision reports before this court until further orders.
9) The respective schools attended by the applicants shall facilitate counselling and psychosocial support for both the applicants and other affected students, and shall ensure that a safe and conducive learning environment is maintained for all.
10) This matter shall be mentioned on 22nd April 2026 for purposes of confirming compliance with these orders. The applicants shall not be required to attend the mention if they shall have been released on bond.
11) This matter is scheduled for hearing on 11th and 12th May 2026. The parties are hereby directed to ensure full preparedness, this being a matter involving minors, so as to facilitate the hearing proceeding and concluding without delay.