[2025] KEHC 4580 (KLR)
The court found that while the seriousness of the offence (murder) justifies stringent bond terms, the accused's prolonged period in remand (about eleven months) and the inability of his family to raise the initial surety amount constitute sufficient grounds to review the bond terms. The court held that bond terms...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4580 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Waweru Kariuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Thika
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E012 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond/bail Terms
- Outcome
- application for review of bond/bail terms allowed in part
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Bond Terms, Pretrial Release, Murder Charge
- 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
Peter Waweru Kariuki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bond/bail Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bond/bail terms previously set for the accused are excessive or unreasonable in light of his personal circumstances.
- 2 Whether the seriousness of the offence justifies the existing bond terms or warrants their review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the seriousness of the offence (murder) justifies stringent bond terms, the accused's prolonged period in remand (about eleven months) and the inability of his family to raise the initial surety amount constitute sufficient grounds to review the bond terms. The court held that bond terms must balance the need to secure the accused's attendance with the right to reasonable bail, and that the original terms were excessive in the applicant's circumstances. Consequently, the court reduced the surety bond to Ksh.500,000 and added a cash bail alternative of Ksh.150,000, with a restriction on leaving the court's jurisdiction without permission.
Court Disposition
application for review of bond/bail terms allowed in part
Orders
- The 2nd accused shall be released on a surety bond of Ksh.500,000 and a cash bail of Ksh.150,000.
- The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without its permission.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Kariuki v Republic (Criminal Case E012 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 4580 (KLR) (3 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4580 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Thika
Criminal Case E012 of 2024
FN Muchemi, J
April 3, 2025
Between
Peter Waweru Kariuki
Accused
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. This application dated 28th February 202 seeks for review of bond/bail terms for the 2nd accused person on grounds that his family have been unable to raise the current terms set on 14th May 2024 of bond of KS,1,000,000/= with one surety of a like amount.
2. The application was argued orally before the court. The applicant deposes that the terms given are too high for his family to afford. He proposed that he be released on terms of KSh.500,000/= bond with one surety and cash bail of KSh.150,000/=.
3. The accused states that he is ready and willing to abide by any terms that the instant court may impose as a precondition to his admission to bail or bond. The accused further states that he has a constitutional right to be admitted to reasonable bail/bond terms pending his trial.
4. In opposition to the application, the respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 5th March 2025 and states that the applicant was charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The applicant pleaded not guilty and was released on bond of Ksh.1,000,000/= with a surety of a similar amount.
5. The respondent argues that the applicant’s proposal that his family has been able to raise only Kshs. 150,000/- in cash and Kshs. 500,000/- in bond is very unreasonable considering the seriousness of the offence. The respondent states that the applicant’s bond terms earlier set are very reasonable. Further, the bond terms are commensurate to the charges levelled against the applicant.
6. The respondent states that the bond term set is meant to ensure that the applicant attends court without fail. It was further submitted that no peculiar circumstances have been advanced by the applicant to warrant upsetting the earlier bond terms.
The Law 7. In granting bail/bond, the court must ensure that bail or bond terms must not be excessive or unreasonable and should not be far greater than what is necessary to ensure or guarantee the accused person’s appearance before court.
8. The Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines at paragraph 3. 1 (d) underpins the right to reasonable bail and bond terms as follows:-Bail or bond amounts and conditions shall be reasonable, given the importance of the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence. This means that bail or bond amounts and conditions shall be no more than is necessary to guarantee the appearance of an accused person for trial. Accordingly, bail or bond terms should not be excessive, that is, they should not be far grater than is necessary to guarantee that the accused person will appear for his or her trial.Conversely, bail or bond amounts should not be so low that the accused person would be enticed into forfeiting the bail or bond amount and fleeing. Secondly, bail or bond conditions should be appropriate to the offence committed and take into account the personal circumstances of the accused person. In the circumstances, what is reasonable will be determined by reference to the facts and circumstances prevailing in each case.
9. In the present case, the 2nd accused person has been charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The 2nd accused person entered a plea of not guilty on 14th May 2024 and was granted a bond of Kshs. 1 million with one surety of a similar amount. Although the 2nd accused person pleads with the court to grant him as an alternative to the surety bond of Kshs. 500,000/- the court is of the view that the said terms are too low. Considering the seriousness of the offence the purpose of bail is to ensure attendance by the accused to court when required to do so. However, whatever terms of bond re set by the court, there is need to ensure such terms are commensurate with the offence and that the same are reasonable.
10. However, the court considers that the 2nd accused has been in remand for about one (1) year since the current bond term were set on 14th May 2024. The period of eleven (11) months in remand mitigates the 2nd accused submission that his family has tried their best to raise a surety for Ksh.1,000,000/- and may have failed. For this and other reasons given, I am convinced that there is need to review the existing bail terms which I hereby do. The terms given must as near as possible mitigate the seriousness and gravity of the offence.
11. The 2nd accused shall be released on a surety bond of Ksh.500,000 and with an addition term for cash bail of Ksh.150,000/=. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without its permission.
12. It is hereby so ordered.
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY DATED AND SIGNED AT THIKA THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025. F. MUCHEMIJUDGE