The accused person herein 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 8th day of April 2026 at around 2030hrs at Bulla Hodhan Rhamu Location, Mandera North Sub-County, Mandera County Murdered NOOR DAHIYA AHMED. The information was read over in Somalia language understood by the accused and to which he pleaded Not Guilty.
Counsel for the accused person made an oral application for his release on bail/bond pending trial contesting the negative pre-bail report dated 4th may 2026 arguing that there is no justification to deny him the enjoyment of his constitutional right enshrined in Article 49 (1) of the constitution. That the accused past behavioural instability and his residence cannot be the reason to take away his liberty. Counsel submit that the accused has no prior history of absconding and his family are ready and willing to stand surety and ensure that he attends court as and when required.
The state opposed the application for release of the accused on bail cited the accused previous conduct and the possibility of him not attending court on account of his residence in Mandera North bordering Ethiopia.
The pre bail report was sought pursuant to section 9 and 10 of the Victim Protection Act. The report indicates that family of the accused especially his mother support his release on bail while his uncle is apprehensive that due to previous inter clan conflict, there is likelihood of tension from the victim’s family if the accused is released on bail. In addition, the uncle intimated that there is an ongoing discussion with a view of resolving the matter amicably through alternative justice system.
The victim’s family on the other hand, is still grieving over the loss of their loved one whose death they believe is an act of revenge which has heightened their distress and sense of injustice. The family strongly oppose the release of the accused on bail citing fears that his release may escalate tensions and possible further conflict.
I have considered the pre-bail report and the rival submissions by the state and counsel for the accused. Indeed, under Article 49 (1) of the constitution an arrested person has the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial unless there are compelling reasons not to be released. In Republic vs Mayende & 3 others (2012) KEHC 5551 KLR, the court observed that 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. In Muraguri vs Republic (1989) klr 181, the court in determining an application for bailor bail should take into account the following factors; the nature of the offence; the likely sentence; previous criminal records, the views of the family of the victims, the possibility of interference with witnesses, the temptation to abscond and the safety of the accused person.
The accused is facing a serious charge of murder whose sentence if convicted is severe. The pre bail reported captured the views of the accused family and that of the victim. It is clear that there is palpable anger on the part of the victim’s family who are yet to come to terms with the death of their loved one in circumstances that suggest a revenge killing.
overarching objective of bail is to guarantee the accused attendance during trial and as and when required by the court.
In my view, the accused person safety is not guaranteed in the locus in quo. This to me is in no doubt a compelling reason not to release him on bail pending trial. Therefore, the application for bail is decline at this stage.
Circumstances may however change and the accused is at liberty to apply for a reconsideration of his application.
Counsel for the accused person made an oral application for his release on bail/bond pending trial contesting the negative pre-bail report dated 4th may 2026 arguing that there is no justification to deny him the enjoyment of his constitutional right enshrined in Article 49 (1) of the constitution. That the accused past behavioural instability and his residence cannot be the reason to take away his liberty. Counsel submit that the accused has no prior history of absconding and his family are ready and willing to stand surety and ensure that he attends court as and when required.
The state opposed the application for release of the accused on bail cited the accused previous conduct and the possibility of him not attending court on account of his residence in Mandera North bordering Ethiopia.
The pre bail report was sought pursuant to section 9 and 10 of the Victim Protection Act. The report indicates that family of the accused especially his mother support his release on bail while his uncle is apprehensive that due to previous inter clan conflict, there is likelihood of tension from the victim’s family if the accused is released on bail. In addition, the uncle intimated that there is an ongoing discussion with a view of resolving the matter amicably through alternative justice system.
The victim’s family on the other hand, is still grieving over the loss of their loved one whose death they believe is an act of revenge which has heightened their distress and sense of injustice. The family strongly oppose the release of the accused on bail citing fears that his release may escalate tensions and possible further conflict.
I have considered the pre-bail report and the rival submissions by the state and counsel for the accused. Indeed, under Article 49 (1) of the constitution an arrested person has the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial unless there are compelling reasons not to be released. In Republic vs Mayende & 3 others (2012) KEHC 5551 KLR, the court observed that 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. In Muraguri vs Republic (1989) klr 181, the court in determining an application for bailor bail should take into account the following factors; the nature of the offence; the likely sentence; previous criminal records, the views of the family of the victims, the possibility of interference with witnesses, the temptation to abscond and the safety of the accused person.
The accused is facing a serious charge of murder whose sentence if convicted is severe. The pre bail reported captured the views of the accused family and that of the victim. It is clear that there is palpable anger on the part of the victim’s family who are yet to come to terms with the death of their loved one in circumstances that suggest a revenge killing.
overarching objective of bail is to guarantee the accused attendance during trial and as and when required by the court.
In my view, the accused person safety is not guaranteed in the locus in quo. This to me is in no doubt a compelling reason not to release him on bail pending trial. Therefore, the application for bail is decline at this stage.
Circumstances may however change and the accused is at liberty to apply for a reconsideration of his application.