REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO E002 OF 2026
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
JOHNSON LOLOIBO……..…..…………………………………………ACCUSED
RULING
1. The court has considered the submissions of the Accused person and those of the counsel for the State, the Supporting Affidavit of No 241231 IP Bonface Maina that was sworn on 27 th March 2026 and filed on 28 th January 2026 (sic) and the Pre-Bail Report of Gideon Melly, Probation Officer Samburu County that was dated 16 th February 2026.
2. The Accused person understood the seriousness of the Charge and legal consequences if he was convicted, as per the said Pre- Bail Report. It was evident that the victim’s family was still bitter and traumatised after the incident.
3. The Pre-Bail Report had also indicated that the community had a negative attitude towards the Accused person and there was concern that his return would provoke hostility or retaliatory action. It was further indicated that the local administration wished that the Accused person stay away from the community to avoid possible tension and unrest. The Probation Office recommended that the Accused person’s application for bail/bond be declined until the tension subsided.
4. As was correctly submitted by the Accused person’s counsel, the Accused person had a fixed abode at Urra Village, Lesikiran Sub-location. Living in a manyatta or a person being a pastoralist was not in itself proof that a person was a flight risk. Those conditions had to be considered alongside other factors, such as the attitude of the community to an accused person and character of the accused person.
5. The court noted that the Accused person had proposed that he live in a different area while his case was going on. Distance, as his counsel submitted, was not a ground to decline a bail/bond application. However, as the counsel for the State pointed out, the Probation Office ought to have bee given an opportunity to ascertain if the person the Accused person wished to stay with during the hearing of the case was able to live with him or not or if he was able to guarantee the Accused person’s attendance in court. This information was not placed before the court.
6. In the absence of particulars of a fixed abode that was suitable to accommodate the Accused person, he was only left with the option of going back to his home where the community was still hostile towards him. Hostility was a factor that would persuade a court not to grant bail/bond.
7. Going further, this court noted from Paragraph (4) of the Supporting Affidavit of No 241231 IP Bonface Maina that the Accused person was arrested in a forest about thirty seven (37) kilometres from his residence. This caused the court to have unease as to whether he would attend court if he was granted bail/bond. It did appear that he was a possible flight risk.
8. It was the considered view of this court that the risk of the Accused person being a flight risk and the risk of him being attacked by the community were solid factors for this court to consider declining the application for bail/bond at this time.
DISPOSITION
9. Accordingly, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Accused person’s application for bail/bond be and is hereby declined.
10. For the avoidance of doubt, the Accused person be and is hereby at liberty to file a fresh application for bail/bond for consideration at a later date.
11. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at MARALAL this 23 rd day of April 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCRC NO E002 OF 20261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO E002 OF 2026
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
JOHNSON LOLOIBO……..…..…………………………………………ACCUSED
RULING
1. The court has considered the submissions of the Accused person and those of the counsel for the State, the Supporting Affidavit of No 241231 IP Bonface Maina that was sworn on 27 th March 2026 and filed on 28 th January 2026 (sic) and the Pre-Bail Report of Gideon Melly, Probation Officer Samburu County that was dated 16 th February 2026.
2. The Accused person understood the seriousness of the Charge and legal consequences if he was convicted, as per the said Pre- Bail Report. It was evident that the victim’s family was still bitter and traumatised after the incident.
3. The Pre-Bail Report had also indicated that the community had a negative attitude towards the Accused person and there was concern that his return would provoke hostility or retaliatory action. It was further indicated that the local administration wished that the Accused person stay away from the community to avoid possible tension and unrest. The Probation Office recommended that the Accused person’s application for bail/bond be declined until the tension subsided.
4. As was correctly submitted by the Accused person’s counsel, the Accused person had a fixed abode at Urra Village, Lesikiran Sub-location. Living in a manyatta or a person being a pastoralist was not in itself proof that a person was a flight risk. Those conditions had to be considered alongside other factors, such as the attitude of the community to an accused person and character of the accused person.
5. The court noted that the Accused person had proposed that he live in a different area while his case was going on. Distance, as his counsel submitted, was not a ground to decline a bail/bond application. However, as the counsel for the State pointed out, the Probation Office ought to have bee given an opportunity to ascertain if the person the Accused person wished to stay with during the hearing of the case was able to live with him or not or if he was able to guarantee the Accused person’s attendance in court. This information was not placed before the court.
6. In the absence of particulars of a fixed abode that was suitable to accommodate the Accused person, he was only left with the option of going back to his home where the community was still hostile towards him. Hostility was a factor that would persuade a court not to grant bail/bond.
7. Going further, this court noted from Paragraph (4) of the Supporting Affidavit of No 241231 IP Bonface Maina that the Accused person was arrested in a forest about thirty seven (37) kilometres from his residence. This caused the court to have unease as to whether he would attend court if he was granted bail/bond. It did appear that he was a possible flight risk.
8. It was the considered view of this court that the risk of the Accused person being a flight risk and the risk of him being attacked by the community were solid factors for this court to consider declining the application for bail/bond at this time.
DISPOSITION
9. Accordingly, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Accused person’s application for bail/bond be and is hereby declined.
10. For the avoidance of doubt, the Accused person be and is hereby at liberty to file a fresh application for bail/bond for consideration at a later date.
11. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at MARALAL this 23 rd day of April 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCRC NO E002 OF 20261