1. The accused person was charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap.63 Laws of Kenya.
2. The particulars of offence are that on the 28th August 2024 at Soweto Stay Nyaguthi Muthithu house in Soweto Duka moja area within Kayole sub county within Nairobi County the accused person PERIS WANGUI NAMU Alias PHOEBE: together with another not before court murdered ANN WANJIKU NG'ANG'A.
3. The accused person filed an application dated the 29 th January 2026 seeking release on bail pending trial.
4. The accused argued that under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution she is entitled to release on bail. The Article provides :
Rights of arrested persons.
49. (1) An arrested person has the right—
(a) to be informed promptly, in language that the person understands, of— (i) the reason for the arrest;
(ii) the right to remain silent; and
(iii) the consequences of not remaining silent;
(b) to remain silent;
(c) to communicate with an advocate, and other persons whose assistance is necessary;
(d) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against the person;
(e) to be held separately from persons who are serving a sentence;
(f) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than—
(i) twenty-four hours after being arrested; or
(ii) if the twenty-four hours ends outside ordinary court hours, or on a day that is not an ordinary court day, the end of the next court day;
(g) at the first court appearance, to be charged or informed of the reason for the detention continuing, or to be released; and
(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.
5. The accused in support of her application further cited Section 123 and 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code and urged this court to find that there are no compelling reasons to deny her bail and that she is not a flight risk.
6. The application was opposed by the prosecution who filed an affidavit to oppose bond sworn by one CPL Antony Gikandi of DCI Kayole.
7. According to the prosecution, the accused person is a flight risk and that can be demonstrated by the fact that after the commission of the offence she disappeared together with her husband who is still at large from Kayole where they resided and where the murder occurred. The accused was later arrested in Embu.
8. The state through Mr Gikandi’s affidavit informed the court that the accused person has no fixed abode and is not gainfully employed so tracing her upon release on bail would be difficult.
9. The prosecution further informed the court that the witnesses that the state would be calling are known to the accused person and if released on bail she might interfere with them. The witnesses are neighbors whom she resided with until the date of the commission of the offense.
10. In determining whether the interests of justice dictate the exercise of discretion in favor of an accused under Article 49 (h) of the Constitution , the courts are to be guided by the provisions of section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya which provides:
“In such a determination the courts are to factor the following exceptions to limit the right to bail;
(a)Nature or seriousness of the offence;
(b)The character, antecedents, associations, and community of the accused person;
(c)The defendants record in respect of the fulfilment of obligations under previous grant of bail;
(d)The strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence:
(2)A person who is arrested or charged with any offence shall be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that the person;
(a)Has previously been granted bail and has failed to surrender to custody if released on bail, it is likely that he would fail to surrender to custody;
(b)Should be kept in custody for his own good.
11. The has indicated that the accused person fled her residence together with her husband immediately after the incident giving rise to these proceedings and by doing so they were basically evading arrest.
12. The accused did not offer any explanation why it suddenly became necessary to leave Kayole and retreat to Embu and neither did she deny the fact that her husband has since gone underground.
13. The court has carefully considered the request for release on bail and the court is persuaded that the accused is indeed a flight risk and if released on bail she is unlikely to return for trail. Her antecedents point to the character of a person who cannot be trusted.
14. In Danson Mgunya and Another Vs Republic (2010) Eklr the court held that the primary consideration in granting bail is whether the accused person would return to face trial.
15. This court is not persuaded that the accused shall return if granted bail and she is indeed a flight risk.
16. The court must have the protection of the interests of justice in mind whenever deciding on the issue of bail to avoid granting bail orders that only serve to undermine the cause of justice.
17. Murder is a grave offence and those that are charged with it face the risk of a death sentence thus the temptation to take flight is real.
18. The accused having demonstrated through her relocation to Embu that she is keen to evade justice, the court would be acting against the interests of justice if it was to grant bail.
19. Accordingly, this court finds that there are compelling reasons to deny bail and accordingly dismisses the application.
20. The accused shall remain in custody until the matter is heard and determined. The prosecution is directed to ensure that all the intended witnesses are availed at the earliest opportunity.
21. It is so ordered.
2. The particulars of offence are that on the 28th August 2024 at Soweto Stay Nyaguthi Muthithu house in Soweto Duka moja area within Kayole sub county within Nairobi County the accused person PERIS WANGUI NAMU Alias PHOEBE: together with another not before court murdered ANN WANJIKU NG'ANG'A.
3. The accused person filed an application dated the 29 th January 2026 seeking release on bail pending trial.
4. The accused argued that under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution she is entitled to release on bail. The Article provides :
Rights of arrested persons.
49. (1) An arrested person has the right—
(a) to be informed promptly, in language that the person understands, of— (i) the reason for the arrest;
(ii) the right to remain silent; and
(iii) the consequences of not remaining silent;
(b) to remain silent;
(c) to communicate with an advocate, and other persons whose assistance is necessary;
(d) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against the person;
(e) to be held separately from persons who are serving a sentence;
(f) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than—
(i) twenty-four hours after being arrested; or
(ii) if the twenty-four hours ends outside ordinary court hours, or on a day that is not an ordinary court day, the end of the next court day;
(g) at the first court appearance, to be charged or informed of the reason for the detention continuing, or to be released; and
(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.
5. The accused in support of her application further cited Section 123 and 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code and urged this court to find that there are no compelling reasons to deny her bail and that she is not a flight risk.
6. The application was opposed by the prosecution who filed an affidavit to oppose bond sworn by one CPL Antony Gikandi of DCI Kayole.
7. According to the prosecution, the accused person is a flight risk and that can be demonstrated by the fact that after the commission of the offence she disappeared together with her husband who is still at large from Kayole where they resided and where the murder occurred. The accused was later arrested in Embu.
8. The state through Mr Gikandi’s affidavit informed the court that the accused person has no fixed abode and is not gainfully employed so tracing her upon release on bail would be difficult.
9. The prosecution further informed the court that the witnesses that the state would be calling are known to the accused person and if released on bail she might interfere with them. The witnesses are neighbors whom she resided with until the date of the commission of the offense.
10. In determining whether the interests of justice dictate the exercise of discretion in favor of an accused under Article 49 (h) of the Constitution , the courts are to be guided by the provisions of section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya which provides:
“In such a determination the courts are to factor the following exceptions to limit the right to bail;
(a)Nature or seriousness of the offence;
(b)The character, antecedents, associations, and community of the accused person;
(c)The defendants record in respect of the fulfilment of obligations under previous grant of bail;
(d)The strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence:
(2)A person who is arrested or charged with any offence shall be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that the person;
(a)Has previously been granted bail and has failed to surrender to custody if released on bail, it is likely that he would fail to surrender to custody;
(b)Should be kept in custody for his own good.
11. The has indicated that the accused person fled her residence together with her husband immediately after the incident giving rise to these proceedings and by doing so they were basically evading arrest.
12. The accused did not offer any explanation why it suddenly became necessary to leave Kayole and retreat to Embu and neither did she deny the fact that her husband has since gone underground.
13. The court has carefully considered the request for release on bail and the court is persuaded that the accused is indeed a flight risk and if released on bail she is unlikely to return for trail. Her antecedents point to the character of a person who cannot be trusted.
14. In Danson Mgunya and Another Vs Republic (2010) Eklr the court held that the primary consideration in granting bail is whether the accused person would return to face trial.
15. This court is not persuaded that the accused shall return if granted bail and she is indeed a flight risk.
16. The court must have the protection of the interests of justice in mind whenever deciding on the issue of bail to avoid granting bail orders that only serve to undermine the cause of justice.
17. Murder is a grave offence and those that are charged with it face the risk of a death sentence thus the temptation to take flight is real.
18. The accused having demonstrated through her relocation to Embu that she is keen to evade justice, the court would be acting against the interests of justice if it was to grant bail.
19. Accordingly, this court finds that there are compelling reasons to deny bail and accordingly dismisses the application.
20. The accused shall remain in custody until the matter is heard and determined. The prosecution is directed to ensure that all the intended witnesses are availed at the earliest opportunity.
21. It is so ordered.