https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8231

Agwu aka Pastor v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E070 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8231 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8231 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application E070 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J June 10, 2026 Between Ojukwu Agwu aka Pastor Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant filed the application dated 14th April 2026 seeking a revision of the trial court's ruling refusal to grant bail. 2.The applicant faces multiple charges, before the trial court: operating a clandestine laboratory (contrary to section 5B(1)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, No. 4 of 1994); possession of precursor chemicals for producing narcotic drugs (contrary to section 4a(1)(A) of the same Act); being in possession of proceeds of crime contrary to section 4(c) as read with section 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) if the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act; being unlawfully present in Kenya contrary to section 53(1)(j) as read with section 53(2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 and conspiracy to commit an offence (contrary to section 4B(2) as read with section 4B(5) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act) 3.The applicant states that he is a Nigerian citizen resident married to a Kenyan citizen with whom they have been blessed with three issues. He contends that he has strong familial ties in the country and has been a frequent visitor over the past fifteen (15) years. He denies any intention to abscond or evade justice. 4.He further avers that he fully cooperated with law enforcement officers upon arrest and did not resist or obstruct the process. He was subsequently charged and presented before the trial court, where his application for bail or bond under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution was declined. He has since remained in custody awaiting trial. 5.The applicant maintains his innocence and 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. 6.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.” 7.From the above provision, it is clear that the court can only revise orders or decisions of the lower court if it is satisfied that the decision, order, or finding is tainted with illegality, errors of law, or impropriety or that there was an irregularity in the proceedings that gave rise to the impugned order, finding or decision. 8.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 that he has strong ties within the jurisdiction. However, the pre-bail report does not positively verify or confirm the applicant’s stated residence. On the contrary, it raises concerns regarding the inability to ascertain a fixed, stable, and reliable address within the jurisdiction. The report therefore leaves the issue of residence uncertain. 9.The Court considers that a verifiable place of abode is a key factor in assessing whether an accused person is likely to attend court. It provides assurance of traceability and accountability during the pendency of trial proceedings. In the present case, the absence of a confirmed residence undermines that assurance. 10.The applicant is a foreign national. In the absence of a clearly established and verifiable residence within the jurisdiction, the risk of absconding is materially heightened. The Court is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient ties to the jurisdiction to allay concerns of flight. 11.The Court further finds that the concerns raised in the pre-bail report are not speculative but grounded in the inability to independently verify the applicant’s residence and stability within the country. This uncertainty, when considered alongside his foreign nationality, gives rise to a real and substantial risk that he may not attend trial if released on bond. 12.In the circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the applicant is a suitable candidate for release on bail at this stage. The risk of absconding remains compelling and outweighs the considerations advanced in support of the application. 13.Accordingly, the application for revision of the orders of the trial court denying the applicant bail is dismissed. It is so ordered. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Kangahi for the ApplicantMr. Mutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant.