RULING ON BOND
1. The accused person, Julius Cheruiyot Bett, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on the 7th day of March 2026, at Kiptere Location in Sigowet Sub-County within Kericho County, he murdered Grace Chepkwony. He has pleaded not guilty and seeks to be admitted to bond pending trial.
2. The application is supported by the accused’s affidavit sworn on 11th May 2026 and by his written submissions. The accused states that the place where the incident allegedly occurred, Singoronik Village, Kiptere, is his ancestral home, but that he has an alternative residence in Eldoret City. He further states that he has been gainfully working since 2014 with the Department of Refugee Services under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and undertakes to attend court whenever required and not to interfere with prosecution witnesses.
3. In his submissions, the accused relies on Articles 48, 49(1)(h) and 50(2)(a) of the Constitution. He submits that he is presumed innocent, that bond is a constitutional right, and that it may only be denied where compelling reasons are demonstrated. He cites, among others, Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, Republic v Jefferson Kimutai Bii [2021] KEHC 2386 (KLR), Republic v Musyimi (Criminal Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7267 (KLR), and Republic v Thomas Kipkemoi Kipkorir & 2 Others (Criminal Case No. 29 of 2012) [2012] KEHC 2541 (KLR).
4. The application is opposed by the prosecution and by the family of the deceased. From the accused’s own summary of the prosecution’s position, the prosecution opposed bond through an affidavit sworn by Sgt. Norman Maroa on 17th March 2026, on the grounds that the accused is a flight risk, that his last known place of abode was the deceased’s homestead, that he is likely to interfere with witnesses who are close relatives, and that his own safety may be at risk if released.
5. The family of the deceased also opposes the application. In the affidavit sworn by Gladys Cheptoo on 29th May 2026, she states that she is a witness in the case and that the accused is her brother-in-law. She alleges that one Kennedy Kiprono, whom she describes as a step-brother and close friend of the accused, attempted to attack Amazon Kipkurui, a witness, with an axe, and threatened him in relation to what he had allegedly said concerning the death of the deceased. She states that the incident was reported at Sondu Police Station under an OB number. She further alleges that another witness, Alvin Kimutai Kosgei, was threatened and instructed not to attend court to give evidence, and that the incident was also reported to the police.
6. The court also called for and received a Probation and Aftercare Service pre-bail report. The report indicates that the accused is a son of the deceased, that the family relationship is strained, and that his siblings and first wife are not willing to stand surety for him. The report further records that the local administration reported that it had to intervene to safeguard the life of the accused from an angry mob or villagers who had camped at the deceased’s home immediately after the incident. The report recommends that consideration of bond be deferred until the environment is responsive to his reception.
7. The family of the deceased, through counsel, also relied on authorities including Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E019 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 10032 (KLR), Republic v Wambui (Criminal Case E018 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 11213 (KLR), Republic v Dennis Kemboi [2019] KEHC 8089 (KLR), Republic v Leonard Kanari Gitau [2016] KEHC 7998 (KLR), and Republic v Githii (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 2500 (KLR).
8. The issue for determination is whether the prosecution and the victims have placed before this court compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution to warrant denial of bond at this stage. The purpose of bond is to ensure that an accused person attends court without fail.
9. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution guarantees an arrested person the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released. Article 50(2)(a) further guarantees the presumption of innocence. The right to bond is therefore a substantive Cconstitutional right. It is, however, not absolute.
10. In Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, the court stated that compelling reasons must be forceful, convincing, real and cogent, and that bond should not be denied on flimsy grounds. That principle was restated in Republic v Jefferson Kimutai Bii [2021] KEHC 2386 (KLR), where the court also observed that the right to bond must be weighed against any opposition raised by the State.
11. In Republic v Danford Kabage Mwangi [2016] eKLR, as cited in Republic v Jefferson Kimutai Bii, the court identified recognised grounds that may justify remand in custody, including risk of failure to attend trial, risk of interference with the course of justice or witnesses, risk of further offences, risk of harm to the accused, and risk to public order.
12. Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the court, when considering bond, to take into account all relevant circumstances including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused, previous compliance with bail, and the strength of the evidence. In Republic v Musyimi [2026] KEHC 7267 (KLR), the court restated that the burden lies on the prosecution to demonstrate compelling reasons, but also emphasised that each case must be determined on its own facts.
13. In Republic v Thomas Kipkemoi Kipkorir & 2 Others [2012] KEHC 2541 (KLR), the court stated that the purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial and not to punish him. The court further stated that each case must be considered on its own merits and that the grant of bail is an exercise of discretion based on the material before the court.
14. The authorities cited by counsel for the family of the deceased are also relevant. In Republic v Kamau [2024] KEHC 10032 (KLR), the court emphasised that the seriousness of a murder charge is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny bond, but that witness interference may amount to a compelling reason, particularly where the accused would return to the same neighbourhood or environment as material witnesses. In Republic v Wambui [2024] KEHC 11213 (KLR), the court declined bond where there was material pointing to likelihood of absconding, witness interference, and hostility on the ground. In Republic v Dennis Kemboi [2019] KEHC 8089 (KLR), the court treated the security of the accused from a hostile family or community as a compelling reason capable of justifying temporary denial of bond, with liberty to renew the application later.
15. I have also considered Republic v Leonard Kanari Gitau [2016] KEHC 7998 (KLR), where the court underscored that allegations of witness interference should not be general or speculative but should be supported by some material showing a reasonable likelihood of interference. I have further considered Republic v Githii [2025] KEHC 2500 (KLR) on the principle that bond may be revisited where circumstances change.
16. Applying those principles to the present application, I agree with the accused that the seriousness of the charge of murder cannot, standing alone, justify denial of bond. Murder is bailable under the current constitutional dispensation. I also take into account the accused’s assertion that he has an alternative residence in Eldoret and that he has been gainfully employed.
17. However, the opposition to bond in this matter is not founded merely on the seriousness of the charge. It is grounded on two central concerns: first, the likelihood of witness interference; and second, the safety of the accused and the preservation of peace within the family and community setting.
18. On witness interference, the affidavit of Gladys Cheptoo do not make a bare or general allegation. It identifies specific persons said to be witnesses, namely Amazon Kipkurui and Alvin Kimutai Kosgei, and gives particulars of alleged threats and intimidation. It is also stated that the alleged incidents were reported to the police. At this interlocutory stage, the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or determine the truth of those allegations conclusively. The court is only required to assess whether, on the material before it, there is a real and reasonable likelihood that witnesses may be interfered with if the accused is released.
19. The relationship between the accused, the deceased and several potential witnesses is also material. The deceased was the accused’s mother. The alleged offence occurred within a close family and village setting. The witnesses said to be at risk appear to be persons within, or connected to, that family and community environment. In those circumstances, the risk of influence, intimidation, pressure, or fear cannot be dismissed as remote or speculative.
20. The accused’s proposed residence in Eldoret is relevant and has been considered. However, the allegations placed before the court suggest not merely a risk arising from physical proximity, but a risk said to arise through persons closely associated with the accused. A condition barring the accused from returning to the homestead or contacting witnesses may not adequately address that risk before the all civilian witnesses testify.
21. The pre-bail report raises an additional concern: the safety of the accused. It records that there is hostility within the family and community and that the local administration had to intervene to protect the accused from an angry mob shortly after the incident. Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the court to consider whether an accused should be kept in custody for his own protection. The court has a duty to protect the victims, witnesses and accused in considering whether to grant bond or not .
22. I am persuaded that the material before the court discloses a real risk of witness interference and a real concern regarding the safety of the accused if released in the community environment. Those risks are not theoretical. They are supported by sworn deposition and by the findings of the pre-bail report. I therefore find that compelling reasons have been established at this stage.
23. I emphasise that this finding is made only for purposes of the bond application. It is not a finding on the guilt of accused.
24. The court must also balance the rights of the accused with the integrity of the trial process. The accused is entitled to a fair and expeditious trial. The witnesses are also entitled to testify freely, without fear, intimidation or improper influence. The justice of a bail decision therefore includes justice to the accused, the victims, and in the interest of justice.
25. In the circumstances, the application for bond is declined at this stage.
26. The accused shall remain in custody pending trial or until further orders of this court.
27. Since the denial of bond is founded on the need to protect witnesses and preserve the integrity of the trial and 4 witnesses have already testified today . I direct that that matter be prioritized . We have already fixed the matter for further hearing on 8.7.26 and 9.7.26 . The prosecution shall avail all the remaining civilian /family witnesses.
28. The accused shall be at liberty to renew his bond application after the said key witnesses have testified, or upon demonstration of material change of circumstances, including a fresh report on the security situation on the ground.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
11.6.26
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 IN THE PRESENCE ACCUSED, MR TOWETT FOR ACCUSED , MR FEDHA & MR KIAMA FOR THE STATE. MR KIPRONO AND MISS CHELANGAT WATCHING BRIEF FOR THE FAMILY AND COURT ASSISTANT BUSIENEI .
1. The accused person, Julius Cheruiyot Bett, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on the 7th day of March 2026, at Kiptere Location in Sigowet Sub-County within Kericho County, he murdered Grace Chepkwony. He has pleaded not guilty and seeks to be admitted to bond pending trial.
2. The application is supported by the accused’s affidavit sworn on 11th May 2026 and by his written submissions. The accused states that the place where the incident allegedly occurred, Singoronik Village, Kiptere, is his ancestral home, but that he has an alternative residence in Eldoret City. He further states that he has been gainfully working since 2014 with the Department of Refugee Services under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and undertakes to attend court whenever required and not to interfere with prosecution witnesses.
3. In his submissions, the accused relies on Articles 48, 49(1)(h) and 50(2)(a) of the Constitution. He submits that he is presumed innocent, that bond is a constitutional right, and that it may only be denied where compelling reasons are demonstrated. He cites, among others, Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, Republic v Jefferson Kimutai Bii [2021] KEHC 2386 (KLR), Republic v Musyimi (Criminal Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7267 (KLR), and Republic v Thomas Kipkemoi Kipkorir & 2 Others (Criminal Case No. 29 of 2012) [2012] KEHC 2541 (KLR).
4. The application is opposed by the prosecution and by the family of the deceased. From the accused’s own summary of the prosecution’s position, the prosecution opposed bond through an affidavit sworn by Sgt. Norman Maroa on 17th March 2026, on the grounds that the accused is a flight risk, that his last known place of abode was the deceased’s homestead, that he is likely to interfere with witnesses who are close relatives, and that his own safety may be at risk if released.
5. The family of the deceased also opposes the application. In the affidavit sworn by Gladys Cheptoo on 29th May 2026, she states that she is a witness in the case and that the accused is her brother-in-law. She alleges that one Kennedy Kiprono, whom she describes as a step-brother and close friend of the accused, attempted to attack Amazon Kipkurui, a witness, with an axe, and threatened him in relation to what he had allegedly said concerning the death of the deceased. She states that the incident was reported at Sondu Police Station under an OB number. She further alleges that another witness, Alvin Kimutai Kosgei, was threatened and instructed not to attend court to give evidence, and that the incident was also reported to the police.
6. The court also called for and received a Probation and Aftercare Service pre-bail report. The report indicates that the accused is a son of the deceased, that the family relationship is strained, and that his siblings and first wife are not willing to stand surety for him. The report further records that the local administration reported that it had to intervene to safeguard the life of the accused from an angry mob or villagers who had camped at the deceased’s home immediately after the incident. The report recommends that consideration of bond be deferred until the environment is responsive to his reception.
7. The family of the deceased, through counsel, also relied on authorities including Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E019 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 10032 (KLR), Republic v Wambui (Criminal Case E018 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 11213 (KLR), Republic v Dennis Kemboi [2019] KEHC 8089 (KLR), Republic v Leonard Kanari Gitau [2016] KEHC 7998 (KLR), and Republic v Githii (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 2500 (KLR).
8. The issue for determination is whether the prosecution and the victims have placed before this court compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution to warrant denial of bond at this stage. The purpose of bond is to ensure that an accused person attends court without fail.
9. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution guarantees an arrested person the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released. Article 50(2)(a) further guarantees the presumption of innocence. The right to bond is therefore a substantive Cconstitutional right. It is, however, not absolute.
10. In Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, the court stated that compelling reasons must be forceful, convincing, real and cogent, and that bond should not be denied on flimsy grounds. That principle was restated in Republic v Jefferson Kimutai Bii [2021] KEHC 2386 (KLR), where the court also observed that the right to bond must be weighed against any opposition raised by the State.
11. In Republic v Danford Kabage Mwangi [2016] eKLR, as cited in Republic v Jefferson Kimutai Bii, the court identified recognised grounds that may justify remand in custody, including risk of failure to attend trial, risk of interference with the course of justice or witnesses, risk of further offences, risk of harm to the accused, and risk to public order.
12. Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the court, when considering bond, to take into account all relevant circumstances including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused, previous compliance with bail, and the strength of the evidence. In Republic v Musyimi [2026] KEHC 7267 (KLR), the court restated that the burden lies on the prosecution to demonstrate compelling reasons, but also emphasised that each case must be determined on its own facts.
13. In Republic v Thomas Kipkemoi Kipkorir & 2 Others [2012] KEHC 2541 (KLR), the court stated that the purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial and not to punish him. The court further stated that each case must be considered on its own merits and that the grant of bail is an exercise of discretion based on the material before the court.
14. The authorities cited by counsel for the family of the deceased are also relevant. In Republic v Kamau [2024] KEHC 10032 (KLR), the court emphasised that the seriousness of a murder charge is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny bond, but that witness interference may amount to a compelling reason, particularly where the accused would return to the same neighbourhood or environment as material witnesses. In Republic v Wambui [2024] KEHC 11213 (KLR), the court declined bond where there was material pointing to likelihood of absconding, witness interference, and hostility on the ground. In Republic v Dennis Kemboi [2019] KEHC 8089 (KLR), the court treated the security of the accused from a hostile family or community as a compelling reason capable of justifying temporary denial of bond, with liberty to renew the application later.
15. I have also considered Republic v Leonard Kanari Gitau [2016] KEHC 7998 (KLR), where the court underscored that allegations of witness interference should not be general or speculative but should be supported by some material showing a reasonable likelihood of interference. I have further considered Republic v Githii [2025] KEHC 2500 (KLR) on the principle that bond may be revisited where circumstances change.
16. Applying those principles to the present application, I agree with the accused that the seriousness of the charge of murder cannot, standing alone, justify denial of bond. Murder is bailable under the current constitutional dispensation. I also take into account the accused’s assertion that he has an alternative residence in Eldoret and that he has been gainfully employed.
17. However, the opposition to bond in this matter is not founded merely on the seriousness of the charge. It is grounded on two central concerns: first, the likelihood of witness interference; and second, the safety of the accused and the preservation of peace within the family and community setting.
18. On witness interference, the affidavit of Gladys Cheptoo do not make a bare or general allegation. It identifies specific persons said to be witnesses, namely Amazon Kipkurui and Alvin Kimutai Kosgei, and gives particulars of alleged threats and intimidation. It is also stated that the alleged incidents were reported to the police. At this interlocutory stage, the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or determine the truth of those allegations conclusively. The court is only required to assess whether, on the material before it, there is a real and reasonable likelihood that witnesses may be interfered with if the accused is released.
19. The relationship between the accused, the deceased and several potential witnesses is also material. The deceased was the accused’s mother. The alleged offence occurred within a close family and village setting. The witnesses said to be at risk appear to be persons within, or connected to, that family and community environment. In those circumstances, the risk of influence, intimidation, pressure, or fear cannot be dismissed as remote or speculative.
20. The accused’s proposed residence in Eldoret is relevant and has been considered. However, the allegations placed before the court suggest not merely a risk arising from physical proximity, but a risk said to arise through persons closely associated with the accused. A condition barring the accused from returning to the homestead or contacting witnesses may not adequately address that risk before the all civilian witnesses testify.
21. The pre-bail report raises an additional concern: the safety of the accused. It records that there is hostility within the family and community and that the local administration had to intervene to protect the accused from an angry mob shortly after the incident. Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the court to consider whether an accused should be kept in custody for his own protection. The court has a duty to protect the victims, witnesses and accused in considering whether to grant bond or not .
22. I am persuaded that the material before the court discloses a real risk of witness interference and a real concern regarding the safety of the accused if released in the community environment. Those risks are not theoretical. They are supported by sworn deposition and by the findings of the pre-bail report. I therefore find that compelling reasons have been established at this stage.
23. I emphasise that this finding is made only for purposes of the bond application. It is not a finding on the guilt of accused.
24. The court must also balance the rights of the accused with the integrity of the trial process. The accused is entitled to a fair and expeditious trial. The witnesses are also entitled to testify freely, without fear, intimidation or improper influence. The justice of a bail decision therefore includes justice to the accused, the victims, and in the interest of justice.
25. In the circumstances, the application for bond is declined at this stage.
26. The accused shall remain in custody pending trial or until further orders of this court.
27. Since the denial of bond is founded on the need to protect witnesses and preserve the integrity of the trial and 4 witnesses have already testified today . I direct that that matter be prioritized . We have already fixed the matter for further hearing on 8.7.26 and 9.7.26 . The prosecution shall avail all the remaining civilian /family witnesses.
28. The accused shall be at liberty to renew his bond application after the said key witnesses have testified, or upon demonstration of material change of circumstances, including a fresh report on the security situation on the ground.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
11.6.26
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 IN THE PRESENCE ACCUSED, MR TOWETT FOR ACCUSED , MR FEDHA & MR KIAMA FOR THE STATE. MR KIPRONO AND MISS CHELANGAT WATCHING BRIEF FOR THE FAMILY AND COURT ASSISTANT BUSIENEI .