RULING
1. The three accused persons are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particular are that on the 21 st June 2026 , at Milimani “B” village in Kiminini Sub County within Trans Nzoia County, the three accused jointly with others not before the court, unlawfully murdered Benson Vitalis Idalia. They all denied the charge.
2. The accused persons applied for bail/bong pending the hearing of the murder case. The application is opposed by the Prosecuting Counsel and both the accused’s and the prosecution have filed their respective affidavits in support and opposition to the granting of bail/bond.
3. In the affidavit of Sgt. Everlyne Sabula, who is the Investigating Officer in the matter, she avers that the deceased was murdered during the day by the accused persons who are his neighbours. Other suspects escaped from the village and they are still at large. The deponent is apprehensive that if released on bond, the accused persons are likely to intimidate, threaten, and interfere with the prosecution witnesses.
4. In addition, it is stated that two of the witnesses are children who witnessed the murder of the deceased, their uncle and they are still traumatized by the incident and releasing the accused persons on bond is likely to compromise both their recovery and testimony before the trial court.
5. The officer stated that already threats have been received by some of the prosecution witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, and they have expressed fears of their continued stay at home. She added that the evidence of the prosecution was direct against the accused persons and she sought that the court at least considers that the key witnesses give their evidence before bond/bail can be considered by the court.
6. It was also the states submission that the murder had triggered a public outcry and the release of the accused persons is likely to inflame emotions from the members of the public and the deceased’s family. The accused persons were also a flight risk as the offence was committed during the day and in the presence of many witnesses.
7. In the Replying Affidavit sworn by the mother of the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons and aunt of the 3 rd accused, dated 20 th July 2026, the deponent averred that she is the mother of the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons and aunt of the 3 rd accused. Her mother is also the registered owner of the parcel of land being KIMININI/MATUNDA BLK 10/MATUNDA 771 and she has a share and home on the said parcel of land.
8. It was her averment that there was no outrage in the village where she lives and the incident occurred and the accused persons have the alternative place to stay if granted bail/bond. She submitted that the allegations made against the accused persons were false as the accused’s were arrested in their house, and there are chances of the accused persons being acquitted.
9. Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to reasonable bail or bond pending their trial unless there are compelling reasons for the denial of the same. The article provides:
“ An arrested 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”.
10. It is thus incumbent on the state to provide compelling reasons as to why the accused persons should not be admitted to bail/bond. Compelling reason for the refusal of bond would include the accused being a flight risk, the accused interfering with witnesses, the accuseds own safety where the public is enraged, the likelihood of re-offending while on bond, among others.
11. In the affidavit of the investigating officer, it is averred that some of the witnesses to the murder are children who are still traumatized and are likely to live in fear and be unable to testify if the accused persons are released. There are also averments of public outrage that could endanger the lives of the accused persons if released.
12. I have also considered the submissions of Mary Naliaka Kirimoche, the mother to the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons and the aunt to the 3 rd accused. While I note that she states she has received no threats against herself, I take note that she is not the accused or alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence.
13. In a determination of similar circumstances, the court had this to state in an application for bond by the accused person, in the case of Republic v David Ochieng Ajwang Alias Daudi & 11 Others (2013) eKLR where Sitati, J. pronounced herself on this issue as follows:
"In my view, the above fears are not mere whims on the part of the prosecution. I am persuaded that because of the volatility of the situation on the ground, the temptation to jump bail is heightened to such an extent that this court cannot overlook it. It is not in dispute that all the accused persons hail from the same locality as the potential witnesses, and this being the case, the danger of such witnesses being driven into a corner by the presence of the accused persons so soon after the ghastly death of the deceased persons is a real possibility. In addition, the fact that the accused persons are so many is likely to send a cold shiver down the spines of such witnesses and corner them into resigning not to appear in court during the hearing of the case even if the accused persons turn up. In a nutshell there will be no witnesses to testify.
As Makhandia J (as he then was) said in the Kiteme Maangi case (above), Murder is a serious offence and attracts the death penalty. Self-preservation is a natural reaction or response of any human being. That self-preservation may take the form of ensuring critical evidence is suppressed forever or the applicant himself takes flight. Finally, such potential witnesses may not be comfortable seeing the accused walk around knowing that their evidence is critical to the success of the prosecution case. That is reason enough to cause such witnesses to have genuine fear, misapprehension and anxiety. It may even lead to such witnesses refusing to testify due to genuine misapprehension of their safety.”
14. The circumstances above mirror the present circumstances. To be fair to the accused persons though, I will not at this stage completely lock them out from being granted bond pending the trial, but direct that the release on bail/bond be deferred until after the key witnesses, especially the children witnesses have testified in this matter.
15. In addition, I will direct that the Probation Officer does prepare and present a pre-bail report on each of the accused persons within 21 days of this order.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 6 th Day of August, 2026.
In the presence of:
HCCRC NO. E010 OF 2026 R VS DAN SANGURA WAFULA & 2 OTHERS BOND RULING Pg. 5
1. The three accused persons are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particular are that on the 21 st June 2026 , at Milimani “B” village in Kiminini Sub County within Trans Nzoia County, the three accused jointly with others not before the court, unlawfully murdered Benson Vitalis Idalia. They all denied the charge.
2. The accused persons applied for bail/bong pending the hearing of the murder case. The application is opposed by the Prosecuting Counsel and both the accused’s and the prosecution have filed their respective affidavits in support and opposition to the granting of bail/bond.
3. In the affidavit of Sgt. Everlyne Sabula, who is the Investigating Officer in the matter, she avers that the deceased was murdered during the day by the accused persons who are his neighbours. Other suspects escaped from the village and they are still at large. The deponent is apprehensive that if released on bond, the accused persons are likely to intimidate, threaten, and interfere with the prosecution witnesses.
4. In addition, it is stated that two of the witnesses are children who witnessed the murder of the deceased, their uncle and they are still traumatized by the incident and releasing the accused persons on bond is likely to compromise both their recovery and testimony before the trial court.
5. The officer stated that already threats have been received by some of the prosecution witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, and they have expressed fears of their continued stay at home. She added that the evidence of the prosecution was direct against the accused persons and she sought that the court at least considers that the key witnesses give their evidence before bond/bail can be considered by the court.
6. It was also the states submission that the murder had triggered a public outcry and the release of the accused persons is likely to inflame emotions from the members of the public and the deceased’s family. The accused persons were also a flight risk as the offence was committed during the day and in the presence of many witnesses.
7. In the Replying Affidavit sworn by the mother of the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons and aunt of the 3 rd accused, dated 20 th July 2026, the deponent averred that she is the mother of the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons and aunt of the 3 rd accused. Her mother is also the registered owner of the parcel of land being KIMININI/MATUNDA BLK 10/MATUNDA 771 and she has a share and home on the said parcel of land.
8. It was her averment that there was no outrage in the village where she lives and the incident occurred and the accused persons have the alternative place to stay if granted bail/bond. She submitted that the allegations made against the accused persons were false as the accused’s were arrested in their house, and there are chances of the accused persons being acquitted.
9. Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to reasonable bail or bond pending their trial unless there are compelling reasons for the denial of the same. The article provides:
“ An arrested 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”.
10. It is thus incumbent on the state to provide compelling reasons as to why the accused persons should not be admitted to bail/bond. Compelling reason for the refusal of bond would include the accused being a flight risk, the accused interfering with witnesses, the accuseds own safety where the public is enraged, the likelihood of re-offending while on bond, among others.
11. In the affidavit of the investigating officer, it is averred that some of the witnesses to the murder are children who are still traumatized and are likely to live in fear and be unable to testify if the accused persons are released. There are also averments of public outrage that could endanger the lives of the accused persons if released.
12. I have also considered the submissions of Mary Naliaka Kirimoche, the mother to the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons and the aunt to the 3 rd accused. While I note that she states she has received no threats against herself, I take note that she is not the accused or alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence.
13. In a determination of similar circumstances, the court had this to state in an application for bond by the accused person, in the case of Republic v David Ochieng Ajwang Alias Daudi & 11 Others (2013) eKLR where Sitati, J. pronounced herself on this issue as follows:
"In my view, the above fears are not mere whims on the part of the prosecution. I am persuaded that because of the volatility of the situation on the ground, the temptation to jump bail is heightened to such an extent that this court cannot overlook it. It is not in dispute that all the accused persons hail from the same locality as the potential witnesses, and this being the case, the danger of such witnesses being driven into a corner by the presence of the accused persons so soon after the ghastly death of the deceased persons is a real possibility. In addition, the fact that the accused persons are so many is likely to send a cold shiver down the spines of such witnesses and corner them into resigning not to appear in court during the hearing of the case even if the accused persons turn up. In a nutshell there will be no witnesses to testify.
As Makhandia J (as he then was) said in the Kiteme Maangi case (above), Murder is a serious offence and attracts the death penalty. Self-preservation is a natural reaction or response of any human being. That self-preservation may take the form of ensuring critical evidence is suppressed forever or the applicant himself takes flight. Finally, such potential witnesses may not be comfortable seeing the accused walk around knowing that their evidence is critical to the success of the prosecution case. That is reason enough to cause such witnesses to have genuine fear, misapprehension and anxiety. It may even lead to such witnesses refusing to testify due to genuine misapprehension of their safety.”
14. The circumstances above mirror the present circumstances. To be fair to the accused persons though, I will not at this stage completely lock them out from being granted bond pending the trial, but direct that the release on bail/bond be deferred until after the key witnesses, especially the children witnesses have testified in this matter.
15. In addition, I will direct that the Probation Officer does prepare and present a pre-bail report on each of the accused persons within 21 days of this order.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 6 th Day of August, 2026.
In the presence of:
HCCRC NO. E010 OF 2026 R VS DAN SANGURA WAFULA & 2 OTHERS BOND RULING Pg. 5