[2025] KEHC 8390 (KLR)
The court found that the application for revision did not demonstrate any illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the trial court's decision to grant the 2nd accused fresh bond terms after forfeiture of the initial cash bail. The trial court had considered the arguments from both sides, including the accused's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 8390 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Mwangi Kabithi; Applicant: Ann Nyambura Wairimu alias Jane Muthoni Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E272 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bond Terms
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Forfeiture of Bail, Revision Jurisdiction, Absconding Accused
- 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
Samuel Mwangi Kabithi
Applicant
Ann Nyambura Wairimu alias Jane Muthoni Mwangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in granting the 2nd accused fresh bond terms after forfeiture of the initial cash bail.
- 2 Whether the bond terms set by the trial court were too lenient given the accused's previous conduct of absconding.
- 3 Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in lifting the warrant of arrest and granting new bond terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for revision did not demonstrate any illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the trial court's decision to grant the 2nd accused fresh bond terms after forfeiture of the initial cash bail. The trial court had considered the arguments from both sides, including the accused's medical evidence and the prosecution's concerns about flight risk. The High Court emphasized that the discretion to grant or deny bail lies with the trial court, and unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion or a violation of legal principles, the High Court will not interfere. As such, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- The file is marked as closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Kabithi & another v Republic (Criminal Revision E272 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 8390 (KLR) (17 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8390 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Revision E272 of 2024
RN Nyakundi, J
June 17, 2025
Between
Samuel Mwangi Kabithi
1st Accused
Ann Nyambura Wairimu alias Jane Muthoni Mwangi
2nd Accused
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Before this court is an application For Revision Pursuant To Section 362 And 364 (1) of The Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya based on the following grounds:-1. That the accused persons were charged on 3rd April 2020 with 10 counts of conspiracy to defraud, forgery, obtaining money by false pretences, personation and uttering false documents2. That the Republic through the investigating officer filed an affidavit to oppose bond. Majority on the reasons that the accused persons were likely to abscond court and that they are flight risk as they had forged identifications in different names.3. That the trial court granted them a bond of ksh. 100,000 and an alternative cash bail of kshs. 30,000/=4. That the accused persons paid a cash bail of kshs. 30,000/=5. That the accused persons jumped bail and warrant of arrest were issued and subsequently cash bail was forfeited to the state6. That the investigating officer was summoned to inform the court of the efforts he has taken to arrest the accused persons7. That on 14th September, 2021 the investigating officer attended court and informed the court that he was yet to arrest the accused persons, he sought for more time to arrest them.8. That the court granted the investigating officer two months and fixed the matter for mention on 16th November, 20219. That later on 4th September 2021 the investigating office spotted 2nd accused at a car wash in town and arrested her10. That the investigating officer brought the 2nd accused to court and the court file was placed before the trial Magistrate11. That the 2nd accused through her advocate made an application that the warrants of arrest be lifted and that she can be granted another bond term and further, presented medical documents from MTRH dated 12th August 2021 as proof that the accused was unwell12. That the Republic opposed that application and prayed that the 2nd accused should not be granted bond as she had abused the bond terms granted before13. That the Republic further asked for an order that the investigating officer authenticates the medical document presented to court by the 2nd accused14. That the trial Magistrate made a ruling the 2nd accused be released on a cash bail o ksh. 40,000/= and fixed the matter for hearing on 16th November 202115. That the Republic is apprehensive that the orders issued on 14th September 2021 will affect the case as the accused is likely to jump bail again and that the 1st accused is still at large16. That the new bond terms were too lenient and that the trial court would not have granted other bond terms
Decision 2. This application has been considered pursuant to section 362 and 364 (1) of the criminal procedure code cap 75 laws of Kenya an it’s the finding of this court that same lacks merit. It is therefore dismissed and the file marked as closed
3. It is ordered.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025………………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE