1. Wycliffe Otieno Odero, the Accused, is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. Particulars of the offence are that on the 27 th day of September, 2025 at about 220ohrs at Yare area in Samburu Central Sub-County within Samburu County, murdered N.N. a juvenile aged 6 years and T.J.O. a juvenile aged 4 years.
2. Having denied the information presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Accused seeks to be released on bail pending trial, an application that is opposed by the State.
3. Through an affidavit deposed by No. 248581 Corporal Nelson Luvisha who depones that the Accused is alleged to have murdered two(2) minors and immediately after the act he disappeared from the scene of the incident and was seen at Nyahururu at 6.00am of the 28 th September, 2025. An hour later he had fled to some unknown place. Through investigations conducted it was confirmed that the Accused was in Kilifi County. He was apprehended on 15 th May, 2026, at midnight from Nzambaraoni, Mtwapa Township. At the time the Accused was using his brother Daniel Ouma Odero’s sim card as means of communication which made it difficult to track him.
4. That there exist compelling reasons for denial of bond/bail in the matter since the Accused remained at large for nine (9) months after the incident; he switched off his known mobile phones during the period which crippled the efforts to trace him. In the meantime, he was seen in various parts of the country including Nyahururu, Nakuru, Kisii and Kilifi counties, hence there is a substantial risk of him absconding and also interfering with prosecution witnesses.
5. In response thereto, the Accused through a replying affidavit avers that from the time he contracted a marriage with his wife they have had disputes because of her infidelity. That on the 27 th September, 2025 he found the wife in the act of sex with one Laanyu and both of them escaped. Since the act hurt him a lot he decided to leave his family and move to Mombasa which he did on the material night.
6. Denying that he did not go into hiding he states that he relocated to the coast region having been driven by emotional distress from his broken marriage and subsequent pursuit of a fresh livelihood, which is within his constitutional right to freedom of movement. That the use of a phone registered in his brother’s name is a long-standing, ordinary family arrangements with no criminal intent or deliberate design to evade or frustrate law enforcement tracking. Further, that the question of interference with witnesses is speculative and unsupported by tangible evidence.
7. I have considered the application, affidavits in support and opposition; and, rival arguments. The right to bail pending trial is guaranteed by the constitution. It can only be limited where compelling reasons exist that call for incarceration. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides that;
(1)An arrested person has the right—
(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.
8. In Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] KEHC 5551 (KLR) the court held that;
“……..the phrase compelling reasons would denote reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond. Bail should not therefore be denied on flimsy grounds but on real and cogent grounds that meet the high standard set by the Constitution.”
9. The Judiciary Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, 2015, pg. 25 provides for circumstances under which an Accused person can be denied bail as follows;
a. That the accused person is likely to fail to attend court proceedings; or
b. That the accused person is likely to commit, or abet the commission of, a serious offence; or
c. That the exception to the right to bail stipulated under Section
123A of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the
circumstances; or
d. That the accused person is likely to endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the public; or
e. That the accused person is likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence; or
f. That the accused person is likely to endanger national security; or
g. That it is in the public interest to detain the accused person in custody.
10. The primary consideration of releasing an Accused person on bond pending trial is whether he will turn up for trial. Releasing an Accused who absconds defeats justice. The instant charge is murder, if found guilty the sentence to be imposed is upto death depending on the circumstances. It is hence a serious offence.
11. The basis of opposing bail in the instant case is based on the question of the Accused being a flight risk. It is argued that soon after the incident he fled. In admitting that he left his known place of abode where he ordinarily resided with his family, the Accused argues that the conduct of his wife offended him such that he decided to leave for Mombasa. Whether or not he was provoked by his wife and lover will be interrogated during trial. What is apparent is the fact of children, stated to be his having died, that he is accused of killing.
12. He left home, went to the coast region and while residing at Mtwapa Town in Kilifi he was using a phone number registered under his brother's name. The fact of using a phone number that was registered on another’s name definitely insinuated that he was hiding his location so as not to be tracked. Avoiding being found by whichever party clearly means disconnecting from digital tracking hence not being traced. This is a person who is a flight risk.
13. It is also urged that there is a likelihood of the Accused interfering with prosecution witnesses. The mother of the deceased minors would be expected to be a witness. It is not clear if she is the woman alleged by the Accused to be his wife. He further alleges that he ran away because he was hurt. The possibility of interfering with such a witness cannot be ruled out.
14. In the upshot, the prosecution has established the fact of existence of compelling reasons requiring the Accused person being denied bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is denied.
15. It is so ordered.
HCCR E009 OF 2026 (RUL.) Page 2 of 2
2. Having denied the information presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Accused seeks to be released on bail pending trial, an application that is opposed by the State.
3. Through an affidavit deposed by No. 248581 Corporal Nelson Luvisha who depones that the Accused is alleged to have murdered two(2) minors and immediately after the act he disappeared from the scene of the incident and was seen at Nyahururu at 6.00am of the 28 th September, 2025. An hour later he had fled to some unknown place. Through investigations conducted it was confirmed that the Accused was in Kilifi County. He was apprehended on 15 th May, 2026, at midnight from Nzambaraoni, Mtwapa Township. At the time the Accused was using his brother Daniel Ouma Odero’s sim card as means of communication which made it difficult to track him.
4. That there exist compelling reasons for denial of bond/bail in the matter since the Accused remained at large for nine (9) months after the incident; he switched off his known mobile phones during the period which crippled the efforts to trace him. In the meantime, he was seen in various parts of the country including Nyahururu, Nakuru, Kisii and Kilifi counties, hence there is a substantial risk of him absconding and also interfering with prosecution witnesses.
5. In response thereto, the Accused through a replying affidavit avers that from the time he contracted a marriage with his wife they have had disputes because of her infidelity. That on the 27 th September, 2025 he found the wife in the act of sex with one Laanyu and both of them escaped. Since the act hurt him a lot he decided to leave his family and move to Mombasa which he did on the material night.
6. Denying that he did not go into hiding he states that he relocated to the coast region having been driven by emotional distress from his broken marriage and subsequent pursuit of a fresh livelihood, which is within his constitutional right to freedom of movement. That the use of a phone registered in his brother’s name is a long-standing, ordinary family arrangements with no criminal intent or deliberate design to evade or frustrate law enforcement tracking. Further, that the question of interference with witnesses is speculative and unsupported by tangible evidence.
7. I have considered the application, affidavits in support and opposition; and, rival arguments. The right to bail pending trial is guaranteed by the constitution. It can only be limited where compelling reasons exist that call for incarceration. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides that;
(1)An arrested person has the right—
(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.
8. In Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] KEHC 5551 (KLR) the court held that;
“……..the phrase compelling reasons would denote reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond. Bail should not therefore be denied on flimsy grounds but on real and cogent grounds that meet the high standard set by the Constitution.”
9. The Judiciary Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, 2015, pg. 25 provides for circumstances under which an Accused person can be denied bail as follows;
a. That the accused person is likely to fail to attend court proceedings; or
b. That the accused person is likely to commit, or abet the commission of, a serious offence; or
c. That the exception to the right to bail stipulated under Section
123A of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the
circumstances; or
d. That the accused person is likely to endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the public; or
e. That the accused person is likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence; or
f. That the accused person is likely to endanger national security; or
g. That it is in the public interest to detain the accused person in custody.
10. The primary consideration of releasing an Accused person on bond pending trial is whether he will turn up for trial. Releasing an Accused who absconds defeats justice. The instant charge is murder, if found guilty the sentence to be imposed is upto death depending on the circumstances. It is hence a serious offence.
11. The basis of opposing bail in the instant case is based on the question of the Accused being a flight risk. It is argued that soon after the incident he fled. In admitting that he left his known place of abode where he ordinarily resided with his family, the Accused argues that the conduct of his wife offended him such that he decided to leave for Mombasa. Whether or not he was provoked by his wife and lover will be interrogated during trial. What is apparent is the fact of children, stated to be his having died, that he is accused of killing.
12. He left home, went to the coast region and while residing at Mtwapa Town in Kilifi he was using a phone number registered under his brother's name. The fact of using a phone number that was registered on another’s name definitely insinuated that he was hiding his location so as not to be tracked. Avoiding being found by whichever party clearly means disconnecting from digital tracking hence not being traced. This is a person who is a flight risk.
13. It is also urged that there is a likelihood of the Accused interfering with prosecution witnesses. The mother of the deceased minors would be expected to be a witness. It is not clear if she is the woman alleged by the Accused to be his wife. He further alleges that he ran away because he was hurt. The possibility of interfering with such a witness cannot be ruled out.
14. In the upshot, the prosecution has established the fact of existence of compelling reasons requiring the Accused person being denied bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is denied.
15. It is so ordered.
HCCR E009 OF 2026 (RUL.) Page 2 of 2