1. The accused herein, faces the charge of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Cap 63) Laws of Kenya for which a plea of not guilty was entered. The particulars of the charge were that on the 17th day of August, 2023 at AIC Iten Township Church in Keiyo North Sub-County within Elgeyo Marakwet, he unlawfully murdered one Ribitta Saragi.
2. The accused has applied that the Bond of Ks. 400,000/- plus 1 surety of like amount earlier given by Hon Mr. Justice Wananda be reviewed for reasons that the accused is not able to meet the terms of the Bond. This Application was opposed by Prosecution Counsel Ms. Mwangi who submitted that the Bond terms given are sufficient and ought not to be reduced. That further, because the accused person is a foreign national, he is a flight risk and so there is a need that he provides a surety. Counsel Ms. Too for the accused submitted that the accused is a Kenyan.
3. I have gone through the earlier proceedings of Hon Mr. Justice Wananda. I note from therein that it was stated in the proceedings of 18th January 2024 by Counsel Mr Oburu who was then appearing with Ms. Too for the accused that the accused had been charged in the Lower Court with the offence of Manslaughter and he was out on Bond having deposited a title deed as security in court. Counsel was therefore praying that the same Title Deed be taken over by this court. To act as security as they prayed that the accused be released on bond. I have also read the Pre-Bail Report. Further the Report states that the accused himself was hopeful that he will be released on Bond and that the Title Deed belonging to his cousin Caroline Khisa already deposited in court will be used to secure his release.
4. I have perused the Pre-Bail Report filed on 30/01/2024. Contrary to the submissions by the Prosecution Counsel that the accused is a foreign national, the Report states that the accused is a Kenyan and they are residents of Uasin Gishu County, Soy Sub-County in a village called Vumilia. The report also stated that there was a sister and cousin of the accused who were willing to stand surety for him. In its recommendation, even as the Report recommended that the accused may be released on Bond, for reasons that the deceased was a foreign national and so this matter also involved a foreign nation. It therefore urged discretion. Further,
Determination
5. I have considered the application. Even as Bond/Bail is a constitutional right as provided under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and can only be denied where the prosecution has sufficiently demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to warrant such a denial, it is worth noting firstly that the accused herein has already been granted Bond.
6. In considering the Application for the reduction of bond for the reasons given, it is important to note that the gravity of the offence that an accused person is facing is in itself a compelling reason which must be considered in determining whether an accused should be released on bond and on what terms. The charge herein is murder which carries a maximum penalty of death. It is indeed a very grave and serious charge. Over and above the gravity of the charge, representations have been made by the accused Counsel and the accused himself that they are able to provide a surety who can avail a security if granted bond as already herein summarised. The Pre-Bail Report too does confirm this position.
7. Having addressed my mind to these issues, I do not find the Personal Bond of Ks. 400,000/- plus one surety of a similar amount to be excessive. Further, from the representations by the defence, they should be able to avail an appropriate surety who can provide the requisite security. I am therefore not satisfied with the submission by the Counsel for the accused that he is not able to meet the bond terms. Over and above that I am also satisfied that the terms of the bond are reasonable. In the circumstances the application that the same be reviewed downward lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Read dated and Signed at ELDORET on 9th July 2025
E. OMINDE
JUDGE
2. The accused has applied that the Bond of Ks. 400,000/- plus 1 surety of like amount earlier given by Hon Mr. Justice Wananda be reviewed for reasons that the accused is not able to meet the terms of the Bond. This Application was opposed by Prosecution Counsel Ms. Mwangi who submitted that the Bond terms given are sufficient and ought not to be reduced. That further, because the accused person is a foreign national, he is a flight risk and so there is a need that he provides a surety. Counsel Ms. Too for the accused submitted that the accused is a Kenyan.
3. I have gone through the earlier proceedings of Hon Mr. Justice Wananda. I note from therein that it was stated in the proceedings of 18th January 2024 by Counsel Mr Oburu who was then appearing with Ms. Too for the accused that the accused had been charged in the Lower Court with the offence of Manslaughter and he was out on Bond having deposited a title deed as security in court. Counsel was therefore praying that the same Title Deed be taken over by this court. To act as security as they prayed that the accused be released on bond. I have also read the Pre-Bail Report. Further the Report states that the accused himself was hopeful that he will be released on Bond and that the Title Deed belonging to his cousin Caroline Khisa already deposited in court will be used to secure his release.
4. I have perused the Pre-Bail Report filed on 30/01/2024. Contrary to the submissions by the Prosecution Counsel that the accused is a foreign national, the Report states that the accused is a Kenyan and they are residents of Uasin Gishu County, Soy Sub-County in a village called Vumilia. The report also stated that there was a sister and cousin of the accused who were willing to stand surety for him. In its recommendation, even as the Report recommended that the accused may be released on Bond, for reasons that the deceased was a foreign national and so this matter also involved a foreign nation. It therefore urged discretion. Further,
Determination
5. I have considered the application. Even as Bond/Bail is a constitutional right as provided under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and can only be denied where the prosecution has sufficiently demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to warrant such a denial, it is worth noting firstly that the accused herein has already been granted Bond.
6. In considering the Application for the reduction of bond for the reasons given, it is important to note that the gravity of the offence that an accused person is facing is in itself a compelling reason which must be considered in determining whether an accused should be released on bond and on what terms. The charge herein is murder which carries a maximum penalty of death. It is indeed a very grave and serious charge. Over and above the gravity of the charge, representations have been made by the accused Counsel and the accused himself that they are able to provide a surety who can avail a security if granted bond as already herein summarised. The Pre-Bail Report too does confirm this position.
7. Having addressed my mind to these issues, I do not find the Personal Bond of Ks. 400,000/- plus one surety of a similar amount to be excessive. Further, from the representations by the defence, they should be able to avail an appropriate surety who can provide the requisite security. I am therefore not satisfied with the submission by the Counsel for the accused that he is not able to meet the bond terms. Over and above that I am also satisfied that the terms of the bond are reasonable. In the circumstances the application that the same be reviewed downward lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Read dated and Signed at ELDORET on 9th July 2025
E. OMINDE
JUDGE