https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/13086

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E092 OF 2026** DOMINIC OGOCHUKWU OKEKE……………………………….APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. Before the trial court the applicant is jointly charged with other not before this court with the offence of conspiracy to traffick narcotic drugs contrary to section 4B as read with section 4B (5) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act No. 4 of 1994. He pleaded not guilty and made an application to be released on bail pending trial. 2. On 26th September 2025, the trial court dismissed his application for bail pending trial. 3. Aggrieved, he filed the present chamber summons dated 6th October 2025 seeking revision of the orders of the trial court. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant’s advocate of similar date. The grounds advanced in support of the application are that the applicant is a Nigerian Nation and was lawfully present in Kenya during his arrest. The applicant is married to a Kenyan National by the name Joyce Mwangale. The marriage has lasted 20 years and they are blessed with two children whose births certificates have been attached. The applicant has strong familial ties and fixed abode in the country which were never contested by the prosecution. He is innocent until proven otherwise and is willing to abide by reasonable bond terms set. 4. The applicant 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. 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.”** 1. From the foregoing provision, it is clear that this Court may only revise an order, decision or finding of the lower court where it is satisfied that the same is tainted by illegality, error of law, impropriety or an irregularity in the proceedings giving rise to the impugned order. 2. 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 resides in Nairobi and has strong ties within the jurisdiction. However, the pre-bail report does not positively verify or confirm his stated residence. On the contrary, it raises concerns as to the inability to establish a fixed, stable and verifiable place of abode within the jurisdiction. 3. A verifiable place of abode is an important consideration in assessing the likelihood of an accused person attending court. It provides assurance of traceability and accountability during the pendency of the proceedings. In the present case, the absence of a confirmed residence materially undermines that assurance. 4. The Court clarifies that the applicant’s foreign nationality, of itself, is not the basis for denying bail. Rather, the concern arises from the applicant’s circumstances, particularly the absence of a verifiable and stable place of abode, the unfavourable pre-bail report and the attendant risk of absconding. The existence of porous borders further heightens that risk. 5. The concerns raised in the pre-bail report are therefore not speculative. They are grounded in the inability to independently verify the applicant’s residence and establish sufficient ties capable of ensuring his attendance at trial. In the circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient safeguards against the risk of flight. 6. The Court accordingly finds that the risk of absconding remains real and substantial and outweighs the considerations advanced in support of the application. The applicant has not demonstrated that the circumstances warrant interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion. 7. In the premises, the application for revision is found to be lacking in merit and is dismissed. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 25th day of August 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**