'
The accused person Geoffrey Kiprono Lagat was charged Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap.63 Laws of Kenya and the particulars of offence were that on the 30th July, 2024 at Saika Estate Njiru Sub County within Nairobi County murdered PATRICIA NDUME MWANZA
The accused person through Ms. Diege has applied for bail pending trial citing the provisions of Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution. Ms. Diege advocate, urged the court to release her client on bail because he is the sole bread winner of his family and therefore his children are suffering while he remains in remand. According to counsel, the accused at the time of his arrest was an electrician and also used to do some business of supplies which earned him a living.
Counsel for the accused told this court that the accused person’s mother is ailing and needs his attention.
Further, counsel informed the court that the accused person turned himself in at Londiani Police Station when he learned he was wanted for murder of the deceased. Counsel urged the court to consider that by voluntarily surrendering to the police the accused person, demonstrated that he can be trusted and therefore the court should not deny him bail pending trial for he shall surely return fort trial.
The accused maintained that he is not a flight risk and that he would abide by any conditions imposed by the trial court until the matter is heard and determined.
The application was opposed by the state through Ms. Njoroge who relied on an affidavit sworn by PC Kiprotich Nelson sworn on 13 th October 2025. According to PC Kiprotich the accused person was arrested in Londiani having fled Nairobi immediately after the commission of the offence.
The state therefore maintains that he is a flight risk and if released on bail he is unlikely to return to court for trial.
Further, counsel for the prosecution told the court that among the persons listed as witnesses is the accused person’s cousin, an immediate neighbor and the caretaker of the place where he committed the offence. The state was there3froe apprehensive that if released on bail, the accused would interfere with the witnesses and dissuade them from appearing to give evidence. Ms. Njoroge cited the case of R Vs. Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others (2019) Eklr in support her arguments.
The case of R vs Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others (2019) eKLR is however distinguishable considering that the accused persons in the matter were serving police officers who could easily access weapons and harm the witness. The genesis of the commission of the crime in the leliman case , pointed to a ruthless gang of police officers who could go to any lengths to suppress evidence thus releasing them on bail would have exposed witnesses to great danger. The instant case is not comparable at all.
The court in considering an application of this nature concerns itself with the determination of whether or not there are compelling reasons to deny an accused person bail. The burden of proving that there exist compelling reasons to justify denial of bail is on the prosecution who must establish any of the reason they advance on a balance of probabilities. The court cannot accept mere apprehensions by state as a basis to deny bail. The state must present real evidence that can sway the court towards the finding that the accused person is unlikely to return for trial if released on bail.
The accused in this matter has not denied that he was arrested in Londiani 11 days after the occurrence of the incident when he turned himself in at Londiani Police station.
PC Kiprotich Nelson did not in his affidavit detail any steps taken from the date of occurrence of the incident in a bid to arrest the accused person thus this court is not able to tell whether it was simply a case in action or the accused person had indeed fled after the commission of the offence.
An accused person who turns himself in at a police station cannot be said to be a person who is unworthy of trust. He had the time and opportunity to vanish without trace from the 30 th of July 2024 to 10 th of August 2024 when he presented himself at Londiani Police station. The surrender to the police in this court’s view amounted to submission to authority and readiness on the part of the accused to submit to the due process of law thus it would be improper for this court to deny him bail.
Article 50 (2) emphasizes the presumption of innocence that should be accorded to an accused person. It is only after evidence has been tendered and the charge established that one can be deemed to have lost his innocence under different test on the matter of bail would apply. As it is in this case, I am not persuaded that merely because the witnesses are known to the accused person, he would necessarily interfere with them.
The prosecution needed to tender evidence either direct or circumstantial demonstrating any attempt on the accused person to interfere with the witnesses since 30 th July 2024. In Patius Gichobi Njagi & 2 others V Republic, [2013] eKLR , the Court of Appeal stated as follows:
“…. where the State opposes bail on account of any of the often-cited an d commonly known fears which it routinely expresses including, but not limited to the likelihood of the accused absconding and failing to attend trial; likelihood of interference with witnesses; the possibility of hostile and even violent reception of the accused by the community upon release, the state must do more. It must step out of the realm of imagination and speculation and provide the court with persuasive argument backed by facts and experiences, and circumstances unique to each individual case that would make the court appreciate the need to deny an applicant bail. As stated in the celebrated case of Jaffer v Republic, 1973 EA 39, the court cannot be called upon to speculate.”
In the absence of any such evidence this court holds the view that the state is simply expressing unfounded fears and that cannot meet the test of compelling reasons as envisaged under Article 49 (1) (h).
In Michael Juma Oyamo & Another V Republic, [2019] eKLR has given guidance on what would amount to compelling reasons to warrant denial of bond pending trial. The court stated as follows:
“…. 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 standards set by the Constitution."
It is this test that this courts finds that the prosecution has failed to meet. Consequently, the accused person’s application for bail is hereby granted in the following terms; -
The accused shall be admitted to a bond of Ksh.1 million plus 2 sureties of a similar amount,
The accused person and his two sureties shall deposit with the court any travel documents that they may be holding such as passports
The accused and his sureties are to provide copies of their national identity cards to the court,
The accused person shall not during the pendency of this matter get into contact with any of the prosecution witnesses and any attempt to do so shall lead to the cancellation of the bond
The accused and his sureties shall provide telephone contacts that they shall retain in use throughout the period of the trial,
The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without leave of the court
It is so ordered.
'
The accused person Geoffrey Kiprono Lagat was charged Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap.63 Laws of Kenya and the particulars of offence were that on the 30th July, 2024 at Saika Estate Njiru Sub County within Nairobi County murdered PATRICIA NDUME MWANZA
The accused person through Ms. Diege has applied for bail pending trial citing the provisions of Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution. Ms. Diege advocate, urged the court to release her client on bail because he is the sole bread winner of his family and therefore his children are suffering while he remains in remand. According to counsel, the accused at the time of his arrest was an electrician and also used to do some business of supplies which earned him a living.
Counsel for the accused told this court that the accused person’s mother is ailing and needs his attention.
Further, counsel informed the court that the accused person turned himself in at Londiani Police Station when he learned he was wanted for murder of the deceased. Counsel urged the court to consider that by voluntarily surrendering to the police the accused person, demonstrated that he can be trusted and therefore the court should not deny him bail pending trial for he shall surely return fort trial.
The accused maintained that he is not a flight risk and that he would abide by any conditions imposed by the trial court until the matter is heard and determined.
The application was opposed by the state through Ms. Njoroge who relied on an affidavit sworn by PC Kiprotich Nelson sworn on 13 th October 2025. According to PC Kiprotich the accused person was arrested in Londiani having fled Nairobi immediately after the commission of the offence.
The state therefore maintains that he is a flight risk and if released on bail he is unlikely to return to court for trial.
Further, counsel for the prosecution told the court that among the persons listed as witnesses is the accused person’s cousin, an immediate neighbor and the caretaker of the place where he committed the offence. The state was there3froe apprehensive that if released on bail, the accused would interfere with the witnesses and dissuade them from appearing to give evidence. Ms. Njoroge cited the case of R Vs. Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others (2019) Eklr in support her arguments.
The case of R vs Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others (2019) eKLR is however distinguishable considering that the accused persons in the matter were serving police officers who could easily access weapons and harm the witness. The genesis of the commission of the crime in the leliman case , pointed to a ruthless gang of police officers who could go to any lengths to suppress evidence thus releasing them on bail would have exposed witnesses to great danger. The instant case is not comparable at all.
The court in considering an application of this nature concerns itself with the determination of whether or not there are compelling reasons to deny an accused person bail. The burden of proving that there exist compelling reasons to justify denial of bail is on the prosecution who must establish any of the reason they advance on a balance of probabilities. The court cannot accept mere apprehensions by state as a basis to deny bail. The state must present real evidence that can sway the court towards the finding that the accused person is unlikely to return for trial if released on bail.
The accused in this matter has not denied that he was arrested in Londiani 11 days after the occurrence of the incident when he turned himself in at Londiani Police station.
PC Kiprotich Nelson did not in his affidavit detail any steps taken from the date of occurrence of the incident in a bid to arrest the accused person thus this court is not able to tell whether it was simply a case in action or the accused person had indeed fled after the commission of the offence.
An accused person who turns himself in at a police station cannot be said to be a person who is unworthy of trust. He had the time and opportunity to vanish without trace from the 30 th of July 2024 to 10 th of August 2024 when he presented himself at Londiani Police station. The surrender to the police in this court’s view amounted to submission to authority and readiness on the part of the accused to submit to the due process of law thus it would be improper for this court to deny him bail.
Article 50 (2) emphasizes the presumption of innocence that should be accorded to an accused person. It is only after evidence has been tendered and the charge established that one can be deemed to have lost his innocence under different test on the matter of bail would apply. As it is in this case, I am not persuaded that merely because the witnesses are known to the accused person, he would necessarily interfere with them.
The prosecution needed to tender evidence either direct or circumstantial demonstrating any attempt on the accused person to interfere with the witnesses since 30 th July 2024. In Patius Gichobi Njagi & 2 others V Republic, [2013] eKLR , the Court of Appeal stated as follows:
“…. where the State opposes bail on account of any of the often-cited an d commonly known fears which it routinely expresses including, but not limited to the likelihood of the accused absconding and failing to attend trial; likelihood of interference with witnesses; the possibility of hostile and even violent reception of the accused by the community upon release, the state must do more. It must step out of the realm of imagination and speculation and provide the court with persuasive argument backed by facts and experiences, and circumstances unique to each individual case that would make the court appreciate the need to deny an applicant bail. As stated in the celebrated case of Jaffer v Republic, 1973 EA 39, the court cannot be called upon to speculate.”
In the absence of any such evidence this court holds the view that the state is simply expressing unfounded fears and that cannot meet the test of compelling reasons as envisaged under Article 49 (1) (h).
In Michael Juma Oyamo & Another V Republic, [2019] eKLR has given guidance on what would amount to compelling reasons to warrant denial of bond pending trial. The court stated as follows:
“…. 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 standards set by the Constitution."
It is this test that this courts finds that the prosecution has failed to meet. Consequently, the accused person’s application for bail is hereby granted in the following terms; -
The accused shall be admitted to a bond of Ksh.1 million plus 2 sureties of a similar amount,
The accused person and his two sureties shall deposit with the court any travel documents that they may be holding such as passports
The accused and his sureties are to provide copies of their national identity cards to the court,
The accused person shall not during the pendency of this matter get into contact with any of the prosecution witnesses and any attempt to do so shall lead to the cancellation of the bond
The accused and his sureties shall provide telephone contacts that they shall retain in use throughout the period of the trial,
The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without leave of the court
It is so ordered.
'