https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12335

Mwenda & 3 others v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12335 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12335 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Criminal Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2026 RL Korir, J July 31, 2026 Between Morris Mwenda 1st Applicant Erick Mawira 2nd Applicant John Mbae 3rd Applicant Kelvin Munene 4th Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Morris Mwenda, Erick Mawira, John Mbae and Kelvin Munene being the 1st to 4th Applicants respectively are facing trial alongside others in Chuka Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. E125 of 2026. They were charged with multiple offences including sabotage, arson, destruction of police property, obstruction of motor vehicles and assault on police officers. 2.They denied the charges before Hon. Wambilyanga Chief Magistrate on 27th February 2026. The Prosecution Counsel sought strict bond terms on account of the multiple counts and seriousness of the charges. 3.The trial court set the bond terms on 3rd March 2026 after reviewing the pre-bail reports filed in respect of each accused. They were admitted to a bond of Kshs.300,000/- with one surety of similar amount. 4.The Applicants subsequently applied for review of the bond terms and the trial court declined holding that they were facing serious charges and variation of the bond terms would not guarantee their court attendance. 5.The Applicants have now moved this court through the present application dated 4th May 2026 seeking review of the bond terms granted by the trial court. The Applicants seek an order inter alia that they be granted the alternative of cash bail instead of the Kshs.300,000 bond which they were unable to raise. 6.The Applicants deposed in the supporting affidavit sworn by John Mbae (3rd Applicant) that they were not a flight risk and were resident they lived with their respective families. That there were no compelling reasons against their being granted cash bail. 7.The Application was not opposed by the Respondent learned Prosecution Counsel Ms. Rukunga told the court that she had instructions from her superiors not to oppose. 8.This court’s revisionary jurisdiction is donated by Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides:-“ 362.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.” 9.It is trite that the purpose of bail/bond is to secure the accused’s attendance at trial. Article 149(1) (h) of the Constitution grants an Accused person the right to be released on bail unless there are compelling reasons. 10.The Applicants were therefore within their right to seek a variation of the bond terms to cash bail. Their request is not opposed Prosecution. I take it that the Prosecution has now assessed the circumstances of the Applicants and found them not to be a flight risk. 11.According to the Applicant’s bond terms are substituted with cash bail of Kshs.50,000/-. Each Applicant shall pay Kshs.50,000/- or in the alternative execute a personal bond of Kshs.50,000/- with one surety of similar amount. Orders accordingly. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026...........................R. LAGAT-KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of the Ms. Musyimi for the Applicants who were also present in court, and Ms Rukunga for the Republic; Muriuki (Court Assistant).