Skip to content
JudgmentThe Republic VS SNAIDA ACHIEMO OBAGA AND CAROLINE BETTY MWAKILENGE2 min read

The Republic VS SNAIDA ACHIEMO OBAGA AND CAROLINE BETTY MWAKILENGE

High Court at Voi High Court · · George. Dulu


  1. An information for murder has been filed in this court against both accused persons Snaida Achiemo Obaga and Caroline Betty Mwakingele who are alleged to have murdered Mercy Zighe Koronge on 31st January 2024.
  2. The accused persons have not taken plea as they have not yet been certified mentally fit to plead.
  3. In the meantime, counsel for the accused persons A. C. Knight & Associates Advocates filed a Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2024 seeking the following orders:-
  4. (Spent).
  5. That the two accused/applicants be released immediately and unconditionally.
  6. That the criminal case against the two accused/applicants be withdrawn forthwith.
  7. The above is the application subject of this ruling.
  8. The application has grounds on the fact of the Notice of Motion and was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn by each of the accused/applicants.
  9. The application was canvassed through oral submissions, which I have considered.
  10. It is apparent that the complaint of the accused/applicants is that they were taken to the Wundanyi court initially and not the High Court, and secondly that they have not been formally charged or taken plea to date, a period of more than three (3) months now.
  11. In my view, the application is misplaced and cannot be successful.  The first reason is that the law and Constitution only requires that a suspect be taken to a court within 48 hours of arrest, not necessarily the High Court.  Thus the fact that the accused/applicants were initially taken to the Magistrate’s court was not a violation of the Constitution or the law.
  12. Secondly, a person who has been arrested can be released on bond/bail even at the police station, not necessarily in court.  Thus if bail is needed, it can be requested at any point either at the police station or any court where an accused person appears, and it will be dealt with appropriately at that point, and if dissatisfied the accused can challenge the decision made on bail/bond.
  13. Thus the facts disclosed to me do not constitute an irregular or unconstitutional criminal process.
  14. I thus dismiss the application, but emphasize that this court has jurisdiction to consider bail/bond application now or hereafter during the pendency of these proceedings.  I decline to grant any of the orders sought.

Dated, signed and delivered this ……..day of May 2024 in open court at Voi.

In the presence of:-

Alfred – Court Assistant