https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7249

Osuji v Republic (Criminal Revision E027 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7249 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7249 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Revision E027 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J May 18, 2026 Between Daniel Chinosmo Osuji Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant filed the application dated 12th March 2026 seeking revision of the orders of the trial court denying him bail. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on the same date. He also seeks reconsideration of the bail terms imposed by the trial court. 2.The applicant states that he is a Nigerian citizen resident in Kileleshwa, Nairobi. He avers that at the time of arrest he was at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport preparing to travel to Nigeria for the December holidays. He contends that his visa was nearing expiry and that his travel was lawful, routine, and intended for renewal of travel documents, family visits, and business engagements before returning to Kenya. He denies any intention to abscond or evade justice. 3.He further avers that he fully cooperated with law enforcement officers upon arrest and did not resist or obstruct the process. He was subsequently charged and presented before the trial court, where his application for bail or bond under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution was declined. He has since remained in custody awaiting trial. 4.The applicant maintains his innocence and invokes the presumption of innocence under Article 50(2)(a). He contends that the prosecution case is not supported by sufficient evidence and that the nature of the charge, without more, does not constitute a compelling reason to deny bail. 5.He states that he has demonstrated good conduct while in custody, supported by a remand custody recommendation report. He has a fixed and verifiable residence in Nairobi and strong community ties, rendering him traceable and amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. 6.The applicant further undertakes to comply with all bail conditions, including reporting requirements. He states that his passport is already deposited in court and that he is willing to surrender additional documents and report to a designated police station or the Nigerian High Commission as directed. He has proposed sureties of known financial standing and residence within the jurisdiction, who have sworn affidavits confirming willingness to secure his attendance at trial. 7.It is further his case that investigations are substantially complete and that witnesses have already recorded statements, thus no prejudice will be suffered by the prosecution if he is released on bond. He denies any contact with witnesses and undertakes non-interference with the trial process. The applicant also cites hardship arising from continued detention, including inability to support his dependants, his elderly mother in Nigeria, and his minor children. He avers that he is the primary financial provider for his family. 8.He concludes that he poses no flight risk, noting his established residence, family ties, deposited passport, and willingness to comply with strict reporting conditions, and urges the Court to allow the application. 9.The revisional jurisdiction of this court is donated by Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that:“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any Subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate Court.” 10.From the above provision, it is clear that the court can only revise orders or decisions of the lower court if it is satisfied that the decision, order, or finding is tainted with illegality, errors of law, or impropriety or that there was an irregularity in the proceedings that gave rise to the impugned order, finding or decision. 11.Having considered the application, the supporting affidavit, and the material placed before the Court, including the pre-bail report, the Court notes the applicant’s assertion that he is resident in Kileleshwa, Nairobi, and that he has strong ties within the jurisdiction. However, the pre-bail report does not positively verify or confirm the applicant’s stated residence. On the contrary, it raises concerns regarding the inability to ascertain a fixed, stable, and reliable address within the jurisdiction. The report therefore leaves the issue of residence uncertain. 12.The Court considers that a verifiable place of abode is a key factor in assessing whether an accused person is likely to attend court. It provides assurance of traceability and accountability during the pendency of trial proceedings. In the present case, the absence of a confirmed residence undermines that assurance. 13.The applicant is a foreign national. In the absence of a clearly established and verifiable residence within the jurisdiction, the risk of absconding is materially heightened. The Court is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient ties to the jurisdiction to allay concerns of flight. 14.The Court further finds that the concerns raised in the pre-bail report are not speculative but grounded in the inability to independently verify the applicant’s residence and stability within the country. This uncertainty, when considered alongside his foreign nationality, gives rise to a real and substantial risk that he may not attend trial if released on bond. 15.In the circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the applicant is a suitable candidate for release on bail at this stage. The risk of absconding remains compelling and outweighs the considerations advanced in support of the application. 16.Accordingly, the application for bail revision of the orders of the trial court denying the applicant bail is dismissed.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGE