1. Edward Lesanjo, the Accused, is charged with Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. Particulars being that on the 2 nd day of March, 2026 at around 1700hrs at Loibor-Nkare village, Samburu Central Sub-County within Samburu County, murdered SEIYA LESUUDA (Deceased)
2. Upon arraignment, the Accused denied the information presented by the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
3. Pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and 10 of the Victim Protection Act, the Court sought the input of the Probation Officer who filed a pre-bail report.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Lenkidi that the report is favourable to his client, the Accused, who has a fixed place of abode hence he should be admitted to bail. That he is not a flight, which calls for favourable bail terms.
5. The learned prosecution counsel, Mr.Kimani informed the court that he had not received any adverse information from the Investigation Officer regarding the Accused, but he pointed out that the deceased was the spouse of the Accused hence there is a likelihood of the Accused coming into contact with the witnesses. He called upon the court to give directions to deter the Accused from contacting the witnesses directly or indirectly.
6. According to the report by the Probation Officer (pre-bail report) secondary victims have no issue with Bond being granted to the Accused. The community do not view the Accused as a security risk or flight risk.
7. I have considered rival arguments. It is an accused person’s constitutional right to be released on bond pending trial unless there are circumstances that require his incarceration during trial.
Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides thus;
(1) 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.
8. The Constitution is silent on what amounts to circumstances that amount to convincing or persuasive enough to make the court deny an accused person bail/ bond. In Republic V Joktan Mayende & 3 others [2012 KEHC 5551 [KLR ] the court stated that:
“…the phrase compelling reasons would denote reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond. Bail should not therefore be denied on flimsy grounds but on real and cogent grounds that meet the high standard set by the Constitution.”.
9. It has been stated now and again that where there may be interference with witnesses, cogent evidence is called for. In the instant case, the State has no objection to the release of the Accused on bond save that they seek imposition of stringent bail terms. This demonstrates the fact of there being no existence of compelling reasons to deter the Accused from being granted bail. The Accused is presumed innocent until found guilty as provided by Article 50 (2) (a) of the constitution, therefore he cannot be subjected to pre-trial detention.
10. For that reason, I grant the Accused person bond of kshs.800,000/= with a surety in a similar sum; and, upon release he shall relocate from Naibor to reside with his paternal uncle within Maralal so as not to come into contact with witnesses in the matter.
11. It is so ordered.
HCCR. NO. E008 OF 2026 RULING Page 4
2. Upon arraignment, the Accused denied the information presented by the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
3. Pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and 10 of the Victim Protection Act, the Court sought the input of the Probation Officer who filed a pre-bail report.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Lenkidi that the report is favourable to his client, the Accused, who has a fixed place of abode hence he should be admitted to bail. That he is not a flight, which calls for favourable bail terms.
5. The learned prosecution counsel, Mr.Kimani informed the court that he had not received any adverse information from the Investigation Officer regarding the Accused, but he pointed out that the deceased was the spouse of the Accused hence there is a likelihood of the Accused coming into contact with the witnesses. He called upon the court to give directions to deter the Accused from contacting the witnesses directly or indirectly.
6. According to the report by the Probation Officer (pre-bail report) secondary victims have no issue with Bond being granted to the Accused. The community do not view the Accused as a security risk or flight risk.
7. I have considered rival arguments. It is an accused person’s constitutional right to be released on bond pending trial unless there are circumstances that require his incarceration during trial.
Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides thus;
(1) 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.
8. The Constitution is silent on what amounts to circumstances that amount to convincing or persuasive enough to make the court deny an accused person bail/ bond. In Republic V Joktan Mayende & 3 others [2012 KEHC 5551 [KLR ] the court stated that:
“…the phrase compelling reasons would denote reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond. Bail should not therefore be denied on flimsy grounds but on real and cogent grounds that meet the high standard set by the Constitution.”.
9. It has been stated now and again that where there may be interference with witnesses, cogent evidence is called for. In the instant case, the State has no objection to the release of the Accused on bond save that they seek imposition of stringent bail terms. This demonstrates the fact of there being no existence of compelling reasons to deter the Accused from being granted bail. The Accused is presumed innocent until found guilty as provided by Article 50 (2) (a) of the constitution, therefore he cannot be subjected to pre-trial detention.
10. For that reason, I grant the Accused person bond of kshs.800,000/= with a surety in a similar sum; and, upon release he shall relocate from Naibor to reside with his paternal uncle within Maralal so as not to come into contact with witnesses in the matter.
11. It is so ordered.
HCCR. NO. E008 OF 2026 RULING Page 4