https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12473

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU** **HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO E076 OF 2022** **AMBROSE KABERIA M’KIMUNYA …………….……..1ST ACCUSED** **REUBEN MUTWIRI ………………………………………… 2ND ACCUSED** **VERSUS** **REPUBLIC ………………………………….…………….... RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Vide a Notice of Motion dated 20th May, 2026 the Applicant herein, one Reuben Mutwiri urges this Court to review the Ruling on bond by Justice Muriithi, dated 19th day of January 2023, in which the Applicant was denied bond on the ground that he was likely to abscond given the nature and seriousness of the offence, and the strength of the prosecution case. Also that he was likely to interefere with witnesses. 2. In his application he avers that he has been in remand for a period of 3 ½ years and given that bond was declined, the trial should have been fast tracked. 3. The Prosecution filed grounds of opposition dated 13th July, 2026. They aver that the issue of bond was settled in the said Ruling and need not be revisited by way of revision. The issues upon which bond was declined still persists and they (Prosecution) are not the cause for delay in hearing of the matter. 4. The Court has carefully considered the application for review of the order denying the accused bond pending trial. It’s trite that a review of such an order is not an appeal against the earlier decision. An Applicant seeking review must demonstrate the existence of new facts, changed circumstances or that the earlier decision was based on an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. In this case, no material change of circumstances has been demonstrated since the delivery of the Ruling declining bond. The compelling reasons that informed the Court’s earlier decision remain intact and uncontroverted. The Court had found that there existed a real likelihood of interference with prosecution witnesses and a substantial risk that the accused would abscond in view of the strength of the prosecution case. Those findings have neither been displaced by fresh evidence nor overtaken by subsequent events. 6. In the absence of any new or exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the earlier determination, the Court finds no legal or factual basis for reviewing its previous orders. 7. Accordingly, the applications for review lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The accused shall remain in custody pending trial, without prejudice to the right to renew the application should there arise a genuine and material change of circumstances. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **S.M. GITHINJI –JUDGE** **30/7/2026** **In the Presence of:-** Mr. Ng’entu is for the 1st Accused Miss Ndegwa for the 2nd Accused