https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12160
The magistrate’s refusal of bond was revisionable because it was founded on an unsupported assertion that the applicants, through family members, were threatening the complainant, yet the record contained no affidavit from the complainant or investigating officer and no opposition by the prosecution. The decision...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 12160 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1 ST APPLICANT: ADEN IBRAHIM ALI; 2 ND APPLICANT: SARAH MUSA ABDI; RESPONDENT: REPUBLIC
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E131 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision From a Subordinate Court Bail Ruling / Ruling on Application for Revision and Bond
- Outcome
- Application allowed; subordinate court bail ruling set aside
- Judges
- ["AK Ithuku"]
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Revisionary Jurisdiction, Right to Liberty, Judicial Discretion, Victim Protection
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ADEN IBRAHIM ALI
1 ST APPLICANT
SARAH MUSA ABDI
2 ND APPLICANT
REPUBLIC
RESPONDENT
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision From a Subordinate Court Bail Ruling / Ruling on Application for Revision and Bond
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate’s refusal of bond was based on a clear and apparent error on the record
- 2 Whether the applicants should be admitted to bond pending trial
- 3 Whether alleged threats to the complainant, unsupported by record evidence, justified denial of bond
Ratio Decidendi
The magistrate’s refusal of bond was revisionable because it was founded on an unsupported assertion that the applicants, through family members, were threatening the complainant, yet the record contained no affidavit from the complainant or investigating officer and no opposition by the prosecution. The decision was therefore not based on law or evidence and could not stand.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; subordinate court bail ruling set aside
Orders
- Ruling on bail delivered on 11th June, 2026 set aside.
- Applicants Aden Ibrahim Ali and Sarah Musa Abdi admitted to cash bail of Kshs. 20,000 each.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKADARA** **MAKADARA HIGH COURT** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E131 OF 2026** **ADEN IBRAHIM ALI……………….….………................…1ST APPLICANT** **SARAH MUSA ABDI…………………………………………2ND APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **REPUBLIC……………………………….……………………RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The applicants were on 4th January, 2026 charged fourthly with assault causing actual bodily harm. They pleaded not guilty. This was after an initial process where it had looked like they were admitting the charge. They changed their minds on the day when facts were to be read. 2. Counsel for the applicants applied for bond. The court stated in its brief ruling that it had come to its attention that the two, through their family had threatened the complainant. How the court’s attention was drawn to that incident is not manifest on record? The court also referred to the fact that the accused persons did not attend court on the first day of plea. For those two reasons bond was denied. It was directed that it will be considered after the complainant has testified. The court referred to its duty to protect victims. 3. This ruling provoked the application dated 18th June, 2026. The same is expected to be brought under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution and section 362, 364 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The applicants are seeking orders: - 5. Spent. 6. That this Honourable court be pleased to call for and peruse the record of the proceedings of Makadara Chief Magistrates’ Court Criminal Case No. E2276 of 2026. 7. That this honourable court be pleased to review, vary and/or set aside the ruling of the Honourable Magistrate delivered on 8th June, 2026 and 11th June, 2026 denying the accused persons bail/bond until after the complainant testifies. 8. That this honourable court be pleased to admit the accused persons **ADEN IBRAHIM ALI** and **SARAH MUSA ABDI** to bail/bond pending the hearing and determination of the said criminal case subject to such terms and conditions as this court may deem fit. 9. That the costs of this application be on the court. The application is supported by affidavits sworn by the two applicants. 10. When the application came for hearing on 29th June, 2026, Ms. Ogega for the state indicated that she had no objection to the two being released on bond. She sought stringent bond terms. 11. I placed the file before the Honourable Deputy Registrar so that the court file could be brought up for perusal. The matter came back on 6th July, 2026. 12. As noted the application is one for review. It is brought up under Article 165(6) and (7). I have seen the reasons given in paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavits. While they read like the applicants are challenging the direction of the court, I have picked one issue from the record which is a clear and apparent error on the part of the learned magistrate. 13. The honourable magistrate stated that it had come to his attention that the accused persons through their family members were threatening the complainant. The record does not show that the state addressed the court on that issue. There is no affidavit either by the Investigating Officer or by the complainant. The state did not oppose bond even before this court. They are not appearing now. It is therefore not clear how it became clear to the trial court that the victim was in any danger. The alleged members of the accused persons’ family are not named. 14. In my considered opinion this is not exercise of discretion. It is a decision that is not based on any provisions of the law. It is not in line with the Bail and Bond Policy guidelines. It is for revision. 15. In the result I set aside the ruling on bail delivered on 11th June, 2026. In its place I admit the two applicants to Kshs. 20,000/- cash bail each. 16. The original file is humbly sent back to the trial court for the case to proceed. It is so ordered. **Hon. Alex K. Ithuku** **JUDGE** The Court: Ruling delivered in virtual court this 24th day of July, 2026. Ms. Ogega for Respondent, Ms. Osindi for Applicants. **Hon. Alex K. Ithuku** **JUDGE** **24/07/2026**