RULING ON BAIL AND BOND (3)
1. The accused person herein Joyce Bernice Wanjiku Chege is charged with the offence murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya.
2. Particulars of the offence being that on the night of 11th September 2024 at Donholm area near Naivas Supermarket in Buruburu Sub-County within Nairobi County she murdered Marcel Orwa Oreng
3. The Accused person was found FIT TO PLEAD on 30/7/2024, the charge/information was read to her and she pleaded NOT GUILTY.
4. The application for bail/bond for Accused person was heard and determined vide Ruling delivered by Hon. L.Mutende LJ on 5/12/2024. The Accused person was granted bail bond of Ksh 500,000/- with 2 sureties of similar amounts.
5. The Court relied on Pre-Bail Report that the Accused person is/was aged 22 years old with 4 year old.
6. On 5/3/2024, the Accused person’s Advocate sought review of bail/bond terms as the Accused person could not afford the amount granted by the Ruling of the Court then.
7. On 31/7/2025 this Court delivered Ruling as follows;
This Court recognizes the right to bail and bond enshrined in the Constitution but the grant of bail and bond is considered alongside circumstances of each case.
The ODPP and Defense have outlined their position relying on the same pleadings and submissions filed during the application for bail and bond that culminated with the Court Ruling of 5/12/2024. This Court lacks appellate powers to reconsider same and/or similar circumstances pleadings and submissions and arrive to different conclusion.
If there are changed new urgent circumstances then the Court shall consider review of bail and bond on merit.
This being review there ought to be change of circumstances or any new developments for the Court to consider. This Court notes that although the Accused is a single mother with a child, the facts depict that she fled after the demise of the deceased and was arrested 9 months later. The Court granted bail bond based on Pre-bail report that the Applicant should be released on stringent terms.
For now I find in the absence of new or changed circumstances bail and bond review is withheld until change of circumstances and/or commencement and progress of the hearing.
8.On 30/10/2025, hearing commenced and 3 witnesses testified, thereafter, Mr Onchiri; Counsel for the Accused person applied for review of bail/bond terms as the bail/bond granted the Applicant could not afford and could only avail 1 surety.
9.Ms Tum ODPP opposed the application for review of bail bond terms as the current bail bond terms were sufficient especially relying on the Affidavit by the Investigation officer PC Josphat Mungania; The accused was found a flight risk after the offence occurred, she fled and was arrested 9 months later in Nyahururu.
10.Ms Wanaina Watching Brief Counsel for the family of deceased opposed bail/bond review as the Accused person was found to be a flight risk from the circumstances of her arrest and the family of deceased would wish to have the hearing of the matter completed and expedited.
11.Mr Onchiri reiterated that his client is deemed innocent until proved guilty, the pre-bail Report indicated that she would give her whereabouts and therefore bail and bond should be reviewed and she is willing to abide with the conditions.
12.This Court has taken into consideration the circumstances of the case, as depicted by pleadings and reports filed. I find that the Court granted bail/bond terms to the Accused person. The bond terms are supposed to be reasonable considering the offence and charged and not mainly affordable.
13.This Court is alive to bail/bond terms are a constitutional right subject to compelling reasons; the Accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty and grant of bail/bond is to ensure the party attends Court. Article 49 (1) (f) of the Constitution is already complied with as bail/bond was/is granted on terms by the Court on 5/12/20024, this is a serious offence and in the absence of new developments reasonable.
14.However, I find absconding after the events culminating to the offence and the Accused person was arrested 9 months later militates, he releases on affordable bail bond terms. She is a flight risk. However, the law mandates incase of new developments, health life threatening circumstances, urgent matters that affect safety security well being of the Accused person, then the Court is ready and willing to reconsider the same to ensure the Accused person enjoys bill of rights.
15.The bail/bond terms are reasonable in the circumstances.
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE E038 OF 2024 NHC (3) 2
1. The accused person herein Joyce Bernice Wanjiku Chege is charged with the offence murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya.
2. Particulars of the offence being that on the night of 11th September 2024 at Donholm area near Naivas Supermarket in Buruburu Sub-County within Nairobi County she murdered Marcel Orwa Oreng
3. The Accused person was found FIT TO PLEAD on 30/7/2024, the charge/information was read to her and she pleaded NOT GUILTY.
4. The application for bail/bond for Accused person was heard and determined vide Ruling delivered by Hon. L.Mutende LJ on 5/12/2024. The Accused person was granted bail bond of Ksh 500,000/- with 2 sureties of similar amounts.
5. The Court relied on Pre-Bail Report that the Accused person is/was aged 22 years old with 4 year old.
6. On 5/3/2024, the Accused person’s Advocate sought review of bail/bond terms as the Accused person could not afford the amount granted by the Ruling of the Court then.
7. On 31/7/2025 this Court delivered Ruling as follows;
This Court recognizes the right to bail and bond enshrined in the Constitution but the grant of bail and bond is considered alongside circumstances of each case.
The ODPP and Defense have outlined their position relying on the same pleadings and submissions filed during the application for bail and bond that culminated with the Court Ruling of 5/12/2024. This Court lacks appellate powers to reconsider same and/or similar circumstances pleadings and submissions and arrive to different conclusion.
If there are changed new urgent circumstances then the Court shall consider review of bail and bond on merit.
This being review there ought to be change of circumstances or any new developments for the Court to consider. This Court notes that although the Accused is a single mother with a child, the facts depict that she fled after the demise of the deceased and was arrested 9 months later. The Court granted bail bond based on Pre-bail report that the Applicant should be released on stringent terms.
For now I find in the absence of new or changed circumstances bail and bond review is withheld until change of circumstances and/or commencement and progress of the hearing.
8.On 30/10/2025, hearing commenced and 3 witnesses testified, thereafter, Mr Onchiri; Counsel for the Accused person applied for review of bail/bond terms as the bail/bond granted the Applicant could not afford and could only avail 1 surety.
9.Ms Tum ODPP opposed the application for review of bail bond terms as the current bail bond terms were sufficient especially relying on the Affidavit by the Investigation officer PC Josphat Mungania; The accused was found a flight risk after the offence occurred, she fled and was arrested 9 months later in Nyahururu.
10.Ms Wanaina Watching Brief Counsel for the family of deceased opposed bail/bond review as the Accused person was found to be a flight risk from the circumstances of her arrest and the family of deceased would wish to have the hearing of the matter completed and expedited.
11.Mr Onchiri reiterated that his client is deemed innocent until proved guilty, the pre-bail Report indicated that she would give her whereabouts and therefore bail and bond should be reviewed and she is willing to abide with the conditions.
12.This Court has taken into consideration the circumstances of the case, as depicted by pleadings and reports filed. I find that the Court granted bail/bond terms to the Accused person. The bond terms are supposed to be reasonable considering the offence and charged and not mainly affordable.
13.This Court is alive to bail/bond terms are a constitutional right subject to compelling reasons; the Accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty and grant of bail/bond is to ensure the party attends Court. Article 49 (1) (f) of the Constitution is already complied with as bail/bond was/is granted on terms by the Court on 5/12/20024, this is a serious offence and in the absence of new developments reasonable.
14.However, I find absconding after the events culminating to the offence and the Accused person was arrested 9 months later militates, he releases on affordable bail bond terms. She is a flight risk. However, the law mandates incase of new developments, health life threatening circumstances, urgent matters that affect safety security well being of the Accused person, then the Court is ready and willing to reconsider the same to ensure the Accused person enjoys bill of rights.
15.The bail/bond terms are reasonable in the circumstances.
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE E038 OF 2024 NHC (3) 2