REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E039 OF 2025
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
SIMON MURUNGA KOLOLI ……………………1 ST ACCUSED
STELLA NAVANGALA KOLOLI………………...2 ND ACCUSED
RULING
1) The 1st and 2nd accused persons were charged before this court on 6/10/2025 and were granted bond terms. On 18/2/2026, this court cancelled the bond of the 1st and 2nd accused persons. The application for cancellation of the bond was argued before this court on 18/2/2026.
2) In an affidavit dated 16/2/2025, the investigating officer, P.C Lucycaren Adhimbo, states that the Respondents attacked the mother of the deceased on 13/2/2026. She was rescued, made a report, and the Respondents were escorted to Kamukuywa Police Station for the offence of threatening to kill contrary to Section 223(1) of the Penal Code. It is further deposed that the Respondents will continue to threaten witnesses and cause them harm.
3) In the Replying Affidavit dated 12/2/2026, the Respondents have denied breaking into the complainant's house and/or threatening to kill the complainant to witness the case. They deny entering the complainant's house.
DETERMINATION
4) I have considered the rival affidavits in this matter. The accused persons have a constitutional right to be released on bail as provided in our Constitution, 2010. However, there are instances where this right doesn’t apply automatically. The right to bail depends on the circumstances of each case. The court has discretion to grant bail, deny it, or cancel the bond if an application is made by the relevant party. The presumption of innocence is stipulated under Article 50 (2) (a) of the Constitution, which provides that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
5) The investigating officer has sworn an affidavit stating that the accused persons have threatened the complainant. There are allegations that an offence has been committed and that the safety of the victims is not guaranteed. The prosecution is apprehensive that the accused persons could interfere with their witnesses. The accused persons have merely denied this allegation and have failed to respond to it adequately. They allege that the incident complained of could have been committed by 4 boys unknown to the complainant. From the averments of the investigating officer, I am persuaded that there is a need to suspend the bond terms of the 1st and 2nd accused persons until such time as there is evidence that the threats to the complainant’s life have ceased. They shall therefore remain in custody. The accused persons are at liberty to seek a review of this order.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually on this 9 th Day of April 2026.
R. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1 st and 2 nd accused persons
Applicant- Absent
Miss Nanzushi - Absent
Wilkister C/A
hccrc no. e039 of 2025- ruling 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E039 OF 2025
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
SIMON MURUNGA KOLOLI ……………………1 ST ACCUSED
STELLA NAVANGALA KOLOLI………………...2 ND ACCUSED
RULING
1) The 1st and 2nd accused persons were charged before this court on 6/10/2025 and were granted bond terms. On 18/2/2026, this court cancelled the bond of the 1st and 2nd accused persons. The application for cancellation of the bond was argued before this court on 18/2/2026.
2) In an affidavit dated 16/2/2025, the investigating officer, P.C Lucycaren Adhimbo, states that the Respondents attacked the mother of the deceased on 13/2/2026. She was rescued, made a report, and the Respondents were escorted to Kamukuywa Police Station for the offence of threatening to kill contrary to Section 223(1) of the Penal Code. It is further deposed that the Respondents will continue to threaten witnesses and cause them harm.
3) In the Replying Affidavit dated 12/2/2026, the Respondents have denied breaking into the complainant's house and/or threatening to kill the complainant to witness the case. They deny entering the complainant's house.
DETERMINATION
4) I have considered the rival affidavits in this matter. The accused persons have a constitutional right to be released on bail as provided in our Constitution, 2010. However, there are instances where this right doesn’t apply automatically. The right to bail depends on the circumstances of each case. The court has discretion to grant bail, deny it, or cancel the bond if an application is made by the relevant party. The presumption of innocence is stipulated under Article 50 (2) (a) of the Constitution, which provides that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
5) The investigating officer has sworn an affidavit stating that the accused persons have threatened the complainant. There are allegations that an offence has been committed and that the safety of the victims is not guaranteed. The prosecution is apprehensive that the accused persons could interfere with their witnesses. The accused persons have merely denied this allegation and have failed to respond to it adequately. They allege that the incident complained of could have been committed by 4 boys unknown to the complainant. From the averments of the investigating officer, I am persuaded that there is a need to suspend the bond terms of the 1st and 2nd accused persons until such time as there is evidence that the threats to the complainant’s life have ceased. They shall therefore remain in custody. The accused persons are at liberty to seek a review of this order.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually on this 9 th Day of April 2026.
R. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1 st and 2 nd accused persons
Applicant- Absent
Miss Nanzushi - Absent
Wilkister C/A
hccrc no. e039 of 2025- ruling 2