Charge.
1. The accused person faces the charge of murder Contrary to Section 204 of the Penal Code.
The particulars before court are that on 23 rd October 2025, at Iten Township Keiyo North Sub-County, in Marakwet County murdered Mercy Jerotich Kemboi.
2. Though the prosecution did not oppose bond, the court sought for a pre bail report. The pre bail report outlines the circumstances of the accused, the views of the community, and the views of the victim’s family among others.
3. The accused is said to have been born in Keiyo North Sub County where he grew up. His parents separated and the mother has since remarried.
The family of the accused person are not opposed to the release of the accused on bond, and have expressed willingness to stand surety for him.
4. On the other hand, the family of the victim are opposed to the release of the accused person on bond, stating that they are still bitter, and are yet to come to terms with the incident. They have also raised concerns over the fact that there has been no reconciliation talks between the two families.
5. Additionally, the local administration has raised their reservations about the release of the accused person on bond, citing his bad character. The local administration also stated that the accused does not have very strong social ties.
The Law.
6. Whether the application for bond is merited in terms of Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution .
Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution provides that:-
An accused person has the right….(h)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 follows that the right to bail is not absolute and where there are compelling reasons, that right may be restricted. Nevertheless, since the Constitution expressly confers the said right, it is upon the prosecution to show that there exist compelling reasons to deny an accused person bail.
8. The considerations in determining whether or not to grant bail are set out in Kenya Judiciary’s Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, March 2015 at p. 25 which sets out judicial policy on bail thus:-
“ the following procedures should apply to the bail hearing:
a. The prosecution shall satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, of the existence of compelling reasons that justify the denial of bail. The Prosecution must, therefore, state the reasons that in its view should persuade the court to deny the accused person bail, including the following:
-b. That the accused person is likely to fail to attend court proceedings;
Or
c. That the accused person is likely to commit, or abet the commission of, serious offence; or
d. That the exception to the right to bail stipulated under Section 123A of the criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the circumstances; or
e. That the accused person is likely to endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the public; or
f. That the accused person is likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence; or
g. That the accused person is likely to endanger national security; or
h. That it is in the public interest to detain the accused person in custody.”
9. In Republic vs Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others [2016] eKLR the court held that:
“The principles set out under the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines have been referred to are the same ones that were set out in the celebrated case of Ng’ang’a vs Republic 1985 KLR 451 where Chesoni J, as he then was thus:-“The court in exercising its discretion to grant bail to an accused person under section 123(1) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75), should grant bail to an accused person unless it is shown by the prosecution that there are substantial grounds for believing that:-
a. The accused will fail to turn up at his trial or to surrender to custody;
b. The accused may commit further offences; or
c. He or she will obstruct the course of justice
10. The primary consideration in deciding whether or not to grant bail to an accused person is whether the accused is likely to attend trial. In making this consideration, the court must consider;
a. The nature of the charge or offence and the seriousness of the punishment to be awarded if the applicant is found guilty;
b. The strength of the prosecution case;
c. The character and antecedents of the accused;
d. The likelihood of the accused interfering with prosecution witnesses.”
11. The issue that arises is whether the reasons raised by the probation officers report are compelling reasons under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution .
12 .I have looked at the issues raised by the probation officers report. Though the report raises concern about the possibility of the accused failing to attend trial, there is no evidence presented before the court to support the suspicion raised that he is a flight risk. This has been countered by the affidavit deponed by the uncle to the accused person, to which he has annexed a letter from the local chief stating that he is well known to the chief.
13. On the issue of the accused person’s personal security, it has been stated that arrangements will be made for him to stay with his relatives in Kericho during the pendency of the trial.
14. Based on the above, I find that there are no compelling reasons to warrant the denial of bond. I find and hold that the accused person is suitable to be released on bond.
15.The accused is hereby granted bond in the following terms;
i) The accused to be released on bond of Ksh 500,000 plus one surety of a similar amount.
ii) The surety to avail an introductory letter from his local Chief, confirming that the Chief is well known to him and that he will be in a position to present him to court whenever required by the court.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Iten this 16 th day of July, 2026.
Martha. Mutuku
Judge.
Mr. Namasake for state.
Court Assistant- Mr.Kibet
Accused- Present.
Advocate for the accused- Miss Mureithi
1. The accused person faces the charge of murder Contrary to Section 204 of the Penal Code.
The particulars before court are that on 23 rd October 2025, at Iten Township Keiyo North Sub-County, in Marakwet County murdered Mercy Jerotich Kemboi.
2. Though the prosecution did not oppose bond, the court sought for a pre bail report. The pre bail report outlines the circumstances of the accused, the views of the community, and the views of the victim’s family among others.
3. The accused is said to have been born in Keiyo North Sub County where he grew up. His parents separated and the mother has since remarried.
The family of the accused person are not opposed to the release of the accused on bond, and have expressed willingness to stand surety for him.
4. On the other hand, the family of the victim are opposed to the release of the accused person on bond, stating that they are still bitter, and are yet to come to terms with the incident. They have also raised concerns over the fact that there has been no reconciliation talks between the two families.
5. Additionally, the local administration has raised their reservations about the release of the accused person on bond, citing his bad character. The local administration also stated that the accused does not have very strong social ties.
The Law.
6. Whether the application for bond is merited in terms of Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution .
Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution provides that:-
An accused person has the right….(h)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 follows that the right to bail is not absolute and where there are compelling reasons, that right may be restricted. Nevertheless, since the Constitution expressly confers the said right, it is upon the prosecution to show that there exist compelling reasons to deny an accused person bail.
8. The considerations in determining whether or not to grant bail are set out in Kenya Judiciary’s Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, March 2015 at p. 25 which sets out judicial policy on bail thus:-
“ the following procedures should apply to the bail hearing:
a. The prosecution shall satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, of the existence of compelling reasons that justify the denial of bail. The Prosecution must, therefore, state the reasons that in its view should persuade the court to deny the accused person bail, including the following:
-b. That the accused person is likely to fail to attend court proceedings;
Or
c. That the accused person is likely to commit, or abet the commission of, serious offence; or
d. That the exception to the right to bail stipulated under Section 123A of the criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the circumstances; or
e. That the accused person is likely to endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the public; or
f. That the accused person is likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence; or
g. That the accused person is likely to endanger national security; or
h. That it is in the public interest to detain the accused person in custody.”
9. In Republic vs Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others [2016] eKLR the court held that:
“The principles set out under the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines have been referred to are the same ones that were set out in the celebrated case of Ng’ang’a vs Republic 1985 KLR 451 where Chesoni J, as he then was thus:-“The court in exercising its discretion to grant bail to an accused person under section 123(1) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75), should grant bail to an accused person unless it is shown by the prosecution that there are substantial grounds for believing that:-
a. The accused will fail to turn up at his trial or to surrender to custody;
b. The accused may commit further offences; or
c. He or she will obstruct the course of justice
10. The primary consideration in deciding whether or not to grant bail to an accused person is whether the accused is likely to attend trial. In making this consideration, the court must consider;
a. The nature of the charge or offence and the seriousness of the punishment to be awarded if the applicant is found guilty;
b. The strength of the prosecution case;
c. The character and antecedents of the accused;
d. The likelihood of the accused interfering with prosecution witnesses.”
11. The issue that arises is whether the reasons raised by the probation officers report are compelling reasons under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution .
12 .I have looked at the issues raised by the probation officers report. Though the report raises concern about the possibility of the accused failing to attend trial, there is no evidence presented before the court to support the suspicion raised that he is a flight risk. This has been countered by the affidavit deponed by the uncle to the accused person, to which he has annexed a letter from the local chief stating that he is well known to the chief.
13. On the issue of the accused person’s personal security, it has been stated that arrangements will be made for him to stay with his relatives in Kericho during the pendency of the trial.
14. Based on the above, I find that there are no compelling reasons to warrant the denial of bond. I find and hold that the accused person is suitable to be released on bond.
15.The accused is hereby granted bond in the following terms;
i) The accused to be released on bond of Ksh 500,000 plus one surety of a similar amount.
ii) The surety to avail an introductory letter from his local Chief, confirming that the Chief is well known to him and that he will be in a position to present him to court whenever required by the court.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Iten this 16 th day of July, 2026.
Martha. Mutuku
Judge.
Mr. Namasake for state.
Court Assistant- Mr.Kibet
Accused- Present.
Advocate for the accused- Miss Mureithi