REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E011 OF 2025
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DERRICK JANA VULEMI ALIAS WA INGO………….……………………….ACCUSED
RULING
14/05/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused person, Derrick Jana Vulemi alias Wa Ingo, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 27 th June 2025 at Popong Village in Narok Central Sub-County within Narok County, he murdered Mary Wanjeri.
2) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and, through counsel, applied to be released on bond pending trial.
3) Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is constitutionally entitled to bail and is ready and willing to abide by any bond terms that the court may impose. Counsel argued that there must exist compelling reasons to justify the denial of bond and that mere allegations of hostility from the community or risk to the accused’s safety are not sufficient grounds to deny bail.
4) Learned prosecution counsel opposed the application and submitted that the interests of justice dictate that the bond be denied at this stage. Counsel informed the court that although there was no investigating officer’s affidavit filed, the prosecution relied on the pre-bail report prepared by the Probation and Aftercare Service.
5) The court has considered the application, the rival submissions by counsel, and the pre-bail report dated 11 th November 2025.
B. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
6) The issue for determination is whether there exist compelling reasons to warrant the denial of bond to the accused person pending trial.
C. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
7) The right to bail is guaranteed under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, 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.”
8) The right to bail is therefore not absolute and may be limited where the prosecution demonstrates compelling reasons.
9) In the case of Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR , the court held that compelling reasons are those reasons that are forceful and convincing enough to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond.
10) Similarly, in Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, the court stated that the primary consideration in bail applications is whether the accused person will attend trial and whether release would prejudice the administration of justice.
11) The Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines issued by the Judiciary further provide that in determining whether compelling reasons exist, the court may consider, among other factors, the nature of the charge, the strength of community ties, the likelihood of absconding, protection of witnesses, and the security of the accused person.
12) The pre-bail report highlights the accused’s weak community ties and social background, which are crucial factors in assessing his likelihood to attend trial and the risk of absconding, thereby justifying the court’s decision.
13) The accused himself admitted that he has not been in contact with his family for a long period and does not even possess their telephone contacts. Consequently, no family member or relative is aware that he is currently in custody.
14) The report further reveals that the accused has no fixed residence, no known sureties, and no identifiable person willing or able to stand surety for him, highlighting the significance of social ties in ensuring his presence at trial.
15) The report's indication of hostility from the community and the fact that the accused was almost subjected to mob justice underscore the credible threats to his safety, constituting a compelling reason to deny bail at this stage.
16) In Republic v Kibor [2025] KEHC 15545 (KLR), the court observed that protection of the accused person may, in certain circumstances, constitute a compelling reason for denial of bail where credible threats to the accused’s safety exist.
17) The court is also persuaded that the accused presents a flight risk. The pre-bail report demonstrates that the accused has minimal social attachment to the locality, lacks a stable residence, and has no identifiable sureties. These factors raise legitimate concerns regarding his likelihood of attending trial if released on bond.
18) Although no affidavit from the investigating officer was filed, the court appropriately relies on the credible pre-bail report, which provides relevant information under Article 49(1)(h) and the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines.
19) The court has carefully balanced the accused’s constitutional right to liberty against the interests of justice and the need to ensure attendance at trial, demonstrating a fair and thorough decision-making process.
D. DISPOSITION
20) Consequently, the accused’s application for release on bond pending trial is hereby declined.
21) The accused shall remain in custody pending the hearing and determination of the case.
22) The accused shall, however, be at liberty to renew the bond application should circumstances materially change.
23) It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK, THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
NAROK HCCRC NO. E011 OF 2025 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E011 OF 2025
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DERRICK JANA VULEMI ALIAS WA INGO………….……………………….ACCUSED
RULING
14/05/2026
A. INTRODUCTION
1) The accused person, Derrick Jana Vulemi alias Wa Ingo, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 27 th June 2025 at Popong Village in Narok Central Sub-County within Narok County, he murdered Mary Wanjeri.
2) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and, through counsel, applied to be released on bond pending trial.
3) Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is constitutionally entitled to bail and is ready and willing to abide by any bond terms that the court may impose. Counsel argued that there must exist compelling reasons to justify the denial of bond and that mere allegations of hostility from the community or risk to the accused’s safety are not sufficient grounds to deny bail.
4) Learned prosecution counsel opposed the application and submitted that the interests of justice dictate that the bond be denied at this stage. Counsel informed the court that although there was no investigating officer’s affidavit filed, the prosecution relied on the pre-bail report prepared by the Probation and Aftercare Service.
5) The court has considered the application, the rival submissions by counsel, and the pre-bail report dated 11 th November 2025.
B. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
6) The issue for determination is whether there exist compelling reasons to warrant the denial of bond to the accused person pending trial.
C. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
7) The right to bail is guaranteed under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, 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.”
8) The right to bail is therefore not absolute and may be limited where the prosecution demonstrates compelling reasons.
9) In the case of Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR , the court held that compelling reasons are those reasons that are forceful and convincing enough to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond.
10) Similarly, in Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, the court stated that the primary consideration in bail applications is whether the accused person will attend trial and whether release would prejudice the administration of justice.
11) The Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines issued by the Judiciary further provide that in determining whether compelling reasons exist, the court may consider, among other factors, the nature of the charge, the strength of community ties, the likelihood of absconding, protection of witnesses, and the security of the accused person.
12) The pre-bail report highlights the accused’s weak community ties and social background, which are crucial factors in assessing his likelihood to attend trial and the risk of absconding, thereby justifying the court’s decision.
13) The accused himself admitted that he has not been in contact with his family for a long period and does not even possess their telephone contacts. Consequently, no family member or relative is aware that he is currently in custody.
14) The report further reveals that the accused has no fixed residence, no known sureties, and no identifiable person willing or able to stand surety for him, highlighting the significance of social ties in ensuring his presence at trial.
15) The report's indication of hostility from the community and the fact that the accused was almost subjected to mob justice underscore the credible threats to his safety, constituting a compelling reason to deny bail at this stage.
16) In Republic v Kibor [2025] KEHC 15545 (KLR), the court observed that protection of the accused person may, in certain circumstances, constitute a compelling reason for denial of bail where credible threats to the accused’s safety exist.
17) The court is also persuaded that the accused presents a flight risk. The pre-bail report demonstrates that the accused has minimal social attachment to the locality, lacks a stable residence, and has no identifiable sureties. These factors raise legitimate concerns regarding his likelihood of attending trial if released on bond.
18) Although no affidavit from the investigating officer was filed, the court appropriately relies on the credible pre-bail report, which provides relevant information under Article 49(1)(h) and the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines.
19) The court has carefully balanced the accused’s constitutional right to liberty against the interests of justice and the need to ensure attendance at trial, demonstrating a fair and thorough decision-making process.
D. DISPOSITION
20) Consequently, the accused’s application for release on bond pending trial is hereby declined.
21) The accused shall remain in custody pending the hearing and determination of the case.
22) The accused shall, however, be at liberty to renew the bond application should circumstances materially change.
23) It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK, THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2026
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
NAROK HCCRC NO. E011 OF 2025 Page 2 of 2