REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E007 OF 2026
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
BRIAN KIPNGENO KORIR……….……….………..…………….……………..…………………1 ST ACCUSED
GILBERT KIPKURUI BOSUPEN…………..……………..……….….…………………………2 ND ACCUSED
RULING
14/08/2026
BOND/BAIL APPLICATION
A. INTRODUCTION, CHARGE AND PARTICULARS
1. The two accused persons are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on 16 th June 2026 at Soget Village in Mogor Location, Transmara East Sub-County within Narok County, they jointly murdered Matayo Cheruiyot Rono.
2. The accused persons were arraigned before this Court on 2 nd July 2026, and each pleaded not guilty to the charge.
3. Learned counsel for the accused persons applied for their release on reasonable bond terms, submitting that they are entitled to the constitutional right to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
4. Pursuant to the Court's directions, the Probation and Aftercare Service prepared Bail Information Reports dated 14 th July 2026 in respect of each accused person to assist the Court in determining the applications.
B. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
5. The sole issue for determination is whether the prosecution has demonstrated the existence of compelling reasons to justify the denial of bond pending trial.
C. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
6. The right to bail is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, which provides that an arrested person has 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. It is now well settled that the constitutional presumption favours release on bail. The burden lies upon the prosecution to demonstrate compelling reasons warranting limitation of that constitutional right. In Republic v Danford Kabage Mwangi [2016] eKLR, the Court observed that compelling reasons must be proved by evidence and not founded on mere allegations or speculation. Similarly, the Bond and Bail Policy Guidelines, 2015 identify factors such as the likelihood of interference with witnesses, flight risk, protection of victims and preservation of public order as relevant considerations.
8. I have carefully considered the applications, the circumstances of the charge and, most importantly, the Bail Information Reports prepared by the Probation Office.
9. Regarding the 1 st accused, Brian Kipngeno Korir, the report establishes that he has a fixed place of residence and family members willing to receive and supervise him if released. It further indicates that although he has a previous reported conviction relating to stock theft, there is no evidence that he ever absconded while previously on bond. However, the report also reveals substantial concerns. The victims' family, local administration, community members and the investigating officer unanimously oppose his release. They express fears that his release would expose prosecution witnesses and the victim's family to intimidation, particularly because they reside in proximity. The report further notes that he has a strained relationship with the community, allegedly relocates periodically to Kuresoi and Mauche areas of Nakuru County, and that no suitable surety was confirmed. The Probation Officer consequently recommended that bond be declined until vulnerable prosecution witnesses have testified.
10. Concerning the 2 nd accused, Gilbert Kipkurui Bosupen, the report similarly establishes that he has a known residence and family responsibilities, being married with two young children. Although his previous conviction alone would not necessarily justify denial of bond, the report equally discloses serious concerns. His immediate family declined to stand surety, citing inability to provide security. The victims' family, community leaders, local administration and the investigating officer strongly oppose his release owing to fears of witness interference, intimidation, public insecurity and the likelihood of absconding, particularly because he reportedly relocates to Nakuru County for extended periods. The Probation Officer therefore recommended that bond be declined at this stage.
11. The Court appreciates that opposition by victims or members of the public, standing alone, cannot amount to compelling reasons. Nevertheless, where such concerns are supported by independent material demonstrating a real likelihood of interference with witnesses or obstruction of justice, the Court is entitled to take them into account.
12. In the present case, the concerns expressed are not merely generalised fears. They are consistently echoed by the investigating officer, the local administration, community representatives and the victims' family. The reports disclose that the accused persons reside in the same locality as the prosecution witnesses, that relations between them and the community are strained, and that there is a genuine apprehension that witnesses may be intimidated before they testify. Additionally, both reports raise concerns regarding the accused persons' movements outside the jurisdiction and the absence of confirmed suitable sureties.
13. While none of these factors, viewed in isolation, may constitute compelling reasons, their cumulative effect persuades this Court that there exists a real risk of interference with prosecution witnesses during the early stages of the trial. The administration of justice requires that vulnerable witnesses be allowed to testify freely and without apprehension.
14. The Court is alive to the constitutional imperative that denial of bail should not amount to punishment before conviction. Consequently, any restriction upon liberty should be no more than is reasonably necessary. In the circumstances of this case, the compelling reasons presently established are not permanent and can be reviewed once the vulnerable prosecution witnesses have testified.
D. DISPOSITION
15. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution has demonstrated compelling reasons, within the meaning of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, to warrant withholding bond at this stage.
16. The applications for bond by the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons are hereby declined.
17. The accused persons shall remain in custody pending the hearing of the evidence of the vulnerable prosecution witnesses.
18. Liberty is granted to either accused person to renew the application for bond after the vulnerable prosecution witnesses have testified or upon any material change in circumstances.
19. The prosecution shall ensure that the hearing of this matter is expedited to safeguard the accused persons' constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
20. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KILGORIS, THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
FOOTNOTES
[1]
ENDNOTES
[i]
KILGORIS HCCRC NO. E007 OF 2026 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E007 OF 2026
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
BRIAN KIPNGENO KORIR……….……….………..…………….……………..…………………1 ST ACCUSED
GILBERT KIPKURUI BOSUPEN…………..……………..……….….…………………………2 ND ACCUSED
RULING
14/08/2026
BOND/BAIL APPLICATION
A. INTRODUCTION, CHARGE AND PARTICULARS
1. The two accused persons are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on 16 th June 2026 at Soget Village in Mogor Location, Transmara East Sub-County within Narok County, they jointly murdered Matayo Cheruiyot Rono.
2. The accused persons were arraigned before this Court on 2 nd July 2026, and each pleaded not guilty to the charge.
3. Learned counsel for the accused persons applied for their release on reasonable bond terms, submitting that they are entitled to the constitutional right to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
4. Pursuant to the Court's directions, the Probation and Aftercare Service prepared Bail Information Reports dated 14 th July 2026 in respect of each accused person to assist the Court in determining the applications.
B. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
5. The sole issue for determination is whether the prosecution has demonstrated the existence of compelling reasons to justify the denial of bond pending trial.
C. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
6. The right to bail is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, which provides that an arrested person has 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. It is now well settled that the constitutional presumption favours release on bail. The burden lies upon the prosecution to demonstrate compelling reasons warranting limitation of that constitutional right. In Republic v Danford Kabage Mwangi [2016] eKLR, the Court observed that compelling reasons must be proved by evidence and not founded on mere allegations or speculation. Similarly, the Bond and Bail Policy Guidelines, 2015 identify factors such as the likelihood of interference with witnesses, flight risk, protection of victims and preservation of public order as relevant considerations.
8. I have carefully considered the applications, the circumstances of the charge and, most importantly, the Bail Information Reports prepared by the Probation Office.
9. Regarding the 1 st accused, Brian Kipngeno Korir, the report establishes that he has a fixed place of residence and family members willing to receive and supervise him if released. It further indicates that although he has a previous reported conviction relating to stock theft, there is no evidence that he ever absconded while previously on bond. However, the report also reveals substantial concerns. The victims' family, local administration, community members and the investigating officer unanimously oppose his release. They express fears that his release would expose prosecution witnesses and the victim's family to intimidation, particularly because they reside in proximity. The report further notes that he has a strained relationship with the community, allegedly relocates periodically to Kuresoi and Mauche areas of Nakuru County, and that no suitable surety was confirmed. The Probation Officer consequently recommended that bond be declined until vulnerable prosecution witnesses have testified.
10. Concerning the 2 nd accused, Gilbert Kipkurui Bosupen, the report similarly establishes that he has a known residence and family responsibilities, being married with two young children. Although his previous conviction alone would not necessarily justify denial of bond, the report equally discloses serious concerns. His immediate family declined to stand surety, citing inability to provide security. The victims' family, community leaders, local administration and the investigating officer strongly oppose his release owing to fears of witness interference, intimidation, public insecurity and the likelihood of absconding, particularly because he reportedly relocates to Nakuru County for extended periods. The Probation Officer therefore recommended that bond be declined at this stage.
11. The Court appreciates that opposition by victims or members of the public, standing alone, cannot amount to compelling reasons. Nevertheless, where such concerns are supported by independent material demonstrating a real likelihood of interference with witnesses or obstruction of justice, the Court is entitled to take them into account.
12. In the present case, the concerns expressed are not merely generalised fears. They are consistently echoed by the investigating officer, the local administration, community representatives and the victims' family. The reports disclose that the accused persons reside in the same locality as the prosecution witnesses, that relations between them and the community are strained, and that there is a genuine apprehension that witnesses may be intimidated before they testify. Additionally, both reports raise concerns regarding the accused persons' movements outside the jurisdiction and the absence of confirmed suitable sureties.
13. While none of these factors, viewed in isolation, may constitute compelling reasons, their cumulative effect persuades this Court that there exists a real risk of interference with prosecution witnesses during the early stages of the trial. The administration of justice requires that vulnerable witnesses be allowed to testify freely and without apprehension.
14. The Court is alive to the constitutional imperative that denial of bail should not amount to punishment before conviction. Consequently, any restriction upon liberty should be no more than is reasonably necessary. In the circumstances of this case, the compelling reasons presently established are not permanent and can be reviewed once the vulnerable prosecution witnesses have testified.
D. DISPOSITION
15. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution has demonstrated compelling reasons, within the meaning of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, to warrant withholding bond at this stage.
16. The applications for bond by the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons are hereby declined.
17. The accused persons shall remain in custody pending the hearing of the evidence of the vulnerable prosecution witnesses.
18. Liberty is granted to either accused person to renew the application for bond after the vulnerable prosecution witnesses have testified or upon any material change in circumstances.
19. The prosecution shall ensure that the hearing of this matter is expedited to safeguard the accused persons' constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
20. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KILGORIS, THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
FOOTNOTES
[1]
ENDNOTES
[i]
KILGORIS HCCRC NO. E007 OF 2026 Page 2 of 2