https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7221

Republic v Juma & 3 others (Criminal Case E024 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7221 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7221 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nakuru Criminal Case E024 of 2026 PN Gichohi, J May 26, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Richard Wanjala Juma 1st Accused Micheal Kipsang Maritim 2nd Accused Elly Njuguna Kuria 3rd Accused Collins Wekesa Kuria 4th Accused Ruling 1.The four accused persons herein have been charged with two counts of the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of Count 1 are that on 2nd November, 2025, at Muthiga village, in Salgaa Area within Rongai Sub-County, in Nakuru County, jointly with others not before court, murdered Joseph Kihiti Ndegwa Gichuhi. 2.The particulars of Count 2 are that on the same day, 2nd November, 2025 at Muthiga village, in Salgaa Area within Rongai Sub County in Nakuru County, jointly with others, not before Court murdered Bethrosa Wanjiku Gathiri. 3.Each of the accused persons denied both charges against them, and a plea of not guilty was entered against each of them. 4.Promptly and through the Affidavit sworn on 22nd April, 2026 by No. 104789 PC Brian Makaga, in his capacity as one of the Investigating Officers, the prosecution opposed the release of the accused persons on bond pending trial. 5.It was deponed that the matter herein was booked in Salgaaa Police station vide OB No. 32/02/11/25 in relation to cold blood murder of Joseph Kihiti Gichuki Ndegwa and Bethrosa Wanjiku Githuri. 6.He stated that upon committing the offence of murder, the accused persons disappeared since November 2025 and have been on the run until they were arrested on 28th March, 2026, at Belbur, Nakuru County. 7.He deponed that it has taken a lot of resources to trace and flush out the accused persons from their hideout deep into the suburbs of Nakuru County. He added that the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused are a flight risk because they are able to change their location from time to time as they do not have any permanent residence. 8.It is his case that the accused persons have the capacity to interfere with witnesses, as some of the witnesses believe that their lives might be in danger if the suspects are released on bail and bond. Further, if released on bail and bond, the accused might jeopardise efforts to apprehend some of the suspects still at large, since they were partners in crime during the commission of the offence. 9.Save for the 1st accused ( Richard Wanjala Juma), who swore a Replying Affidavit on 23rd April, 2026, all the other accused persons, through their respective advocates, submitted orally in support of the application for Bail and Bond. 10.The 1st accused stated that he was arrested on 28th March, 2026, and arraigned in Court on 14th April, 2026. However, he did not take any pleas as the prosecution sought and were given more time to carry out investigations, thus he took a plea on 22nd April, 2026. 11.He stated that he has cooperated with the Investigating Officer and thus, no compelling reason has been given to deny him his right to bail guaranteed under Article 49 of the Constitution. He added that the charge of murder is not the only ground for an accused person to be denied bond/bail. 12.He contended that the assertion regarding his lack of a permanent residence is factually incorrect. He maintained that he is a long-term resident of the Salgaa area, situated near the Salgaa Police Station within Nakuru, which has served as his fixed and established abode for several years. 13.Regarding the allegation that he is a flight risk, he asserted that he has never absconded nor attempted to flee the jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, he does not possess a passport or any other travel documents, rendering any attempt to leave the country impossible. He is, therefore, fully prepared to submit to the ongoing supervision of the Court. 14.The 1st accused further emphasised his deep-rooted family ties within Nakuru County. He stated that as a husband and the father of two minor, school-going children, he is the sole provider for his family and that his children depend entirely on him for their financial, emotional, and general well-being, and they stand to suffer irreparable hardship should his bail application be declined. 15.He clarified that he has no personal acquaintance with any of the individuals listed as prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the prosecution’s apprehension regarding the potential for witness interference or meddling is entirely speculative and without merit. In the circumstances, the Accused respectfully prayed that this Court exercise its discretion to grant him favourable bail and bond terms. 16.During the hearing of this Bail/Bond Application, the prosecution, led by Mr. Wakasiaka and supported by Ms. Macharia Faith for the complainant, vehemently opposed the release of the accused persons on bond. 17.They argued that the accused are significant flight risks, noting that while the alleged offence occurred on 2nd November 2025, the suspects remained at large for over five months until their arrest on 28th March 2026. The prosecution further contended that releasing the accused at this stage could jeopardise the ongoing investigations, particularly regarding the apprehension of other suspects who are still on the run. 18.Mr. Wakasiaka specifically challenged the defence’s claim of local residence, arguing that if the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused truly resided in Salgaa, they would have been apprehended much sooner. Additionally, he highlighted that the 1st accused is already the subject of an active warrant of arrest in a separate criminal case at Molo Law Courts, being Criminal Case No. 1604 of 2025, and therefore, his release on bond would jeopardise the said case. 19.Ms. Wandera, for the 1st accused, relied on her filed written submissions and a Replying Affidavit dated 23rd April 2026 to support the application. 20.Ms. Ngugi for the 2nd accused argued that her client is not a flight risk, citing his fixed residence in Salgaa, his role as a family man with two wives and five children, and his formal employment as a security guard with Kenya Power. She further contended that generalised allegations of witness interference were insufficient, noting that the accused’s rights had already been violated by being held in custody for 25 days before his plea was taken. 21.Mr. Tumu, for the 3rd accused emphasised the presumption of innocence and argued that the mere pressing of charges in multiple files does not constitute a criminal record. He pointed out that the prosecution’s Affidavit was a replica of the one in a related case, Nakuru High Court Criminal Case No. E021 of 2026 and urged the court to consider consolidating the bond terms for both matters. 22.Ms. Molande for the 4th accused described the Prosecution’s claims that her client was a flight risk as speculative, as no summons or warrants had been issued before his arrest. She asserted that the 4th accused has a permanent home in Salgaa and is willing to provide verifiable security. Additionally, she stated that the 4th accused is unwell and requires urgent care beyond the basic treatment provided in prison. 23.In response, Ms. Macharia Faith, watching brief for the complainants, supported the Prosecution’s opposition. She highlighted the accused persons' links to the related Case No. E021 of 2026 and prayed that they remain in remand until investigations are fully concluded. 24.The defence contended that the prosecution's case currently rests on unsubstantiated allegations rather than tested evidence. Citing Republic vs. Joseph Kuria Irungu [2020] eKLR, they argued that the strength of a case should be appraised based on evidence actually adduced before the court, not merely on witness statements. Further, they cited Republic vs. Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR to argue that evaluating the probability of guilt at this early stage is premature and inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. 25.The defence maintained that the Prosecution had failed to demonstrate any compelling reasons defined in Republic vs. Robert Zippor Nzilu [2018] eKLR as forceful, convincing, and persuasive evidence to justify detention. They argued that there are no adverse allegations regarding the 1st Accused's character or prior history of jumping bail. 26.Further, the defence contended that the allegations of witness interference are implausible as the Prosecution has had ample time to conclude investigations and has not disclosed the identities of the witnesses at risk. The Court was thus urged to explore less restrictive means to ensure trial attendance, such as requiring the accused to stay away from specific localities. 27.Emphasising that the burden of proof lies solely with the Prosecution to satisfy the court that the interests of justice require detention, reliance was placed on the case of Republic vs. Danson Ngunya & another [2010] eKLR, and further the case of Republic vs. David Nyasora Nyamongo Criminal Case No. 90 of 2010, and argued that the court's discretion should prioritise the presumption of innocence. 28.Finally, the defence urged the court to adopt the perspective found in the Nigerian case of Saidu vs State 1982 2NCR 4 and submitted that until proven guilty, individuals are entitled to live as free people. Therefore, since the prosecution has failed to meet its burden on a balance of probabilities, they urged that the accused be admitted to bail. Analysis and Determination 29.This court has considered submissions by both parties for and against bail/bond, as well as the affidavits. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 provides that an arrested person has the right “to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.” 30.Further, Section 123A provides as follows:-1.Subject to Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and notwithstanding Section 123 in making a decision on bail and bond, the Court shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances and in particular—a.Nature or seriousness of the offence;b.The character, antecedents, associations, and community of the accused person;c.The defendant's record in respect of the fulfilment of obligations under previous grant of bail;d.The strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence2.A person who is arrested or charged with any offence shall be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that the person;a.Has previously been granted bail and has failed to surrender to custody if released on bail, it is likely that he would fail to surrender to custody;b.Should be kept in custody for his own good. 31.Further still, the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines (2023) provide that to determine whether compelling reasons exist to deny bail, the courts should apply the following considerations:i.The nature of the charge or offence and the seriousness of the punishment to be meted if the accused person is found guilty.ii.Character and antecedents of the accused person.iii.The strength of the prosecution case.iv.The failure of the accused person to observe bail or bond terms.v.Likelihood of interfering with witnesses.vi.The need to protect the victim or victims of the crime.vii.The relationship between the accused person and potential witnesses.viii.Child offenders.ix.The accused person is a flight risk.x.Whether the accused person is gainfully employed.xi.Public order, peace or security; andxii.Protection of the accused person. 32.The Prosecution, therefore, has the duty to demonstrate compelling reasons why the accused should not be released on bond terms. In this case, the gravity of the murder charges and the consequences thereof in case of a conviction cannot be overemphasised. The Prosecution has raised substantial concerns that the accused persons are a flight risk, noting that the suspects remained at large for five months following the alleged offence. Furthermore, the Prosecution’s apprehension regarding witness interference and the risk to public safety cannot be ignored, especially given the alleged cold-blooded nature described in the Investigating Officer's Affidavit. 33.However, Article 49 (1)(h) guarantees the right to bail unless compelling reasons exist not to grant it. The defence has rightly argued that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and that the strength of the prosecution’s evidence remains untested at this preliminary stage. Notably, the 2nd accused appears to have ties to the community as a gainfully employed security guard. On his part, the 3rd accused has demonstrated a level of cooperation by attending court for his plea and from his home, despite his reported health challenges. 34.Regarding the 1st accused ( Richard Wanjara Juma) , he is already the subject of an active warrant of arrest in a separate criminal case at Molo Law Courts, being Criminal Case No. 1604 of 2025, and therefore, his release on bond would jeopardise the said case. He has not disputed that fact. This court is satisfied that the 1st accused is a flight risk. 35.As regards the 4th accused, there is no sufficient material to support allegations that he may not attend court if released on bond, other than the fact that it took the police time and resources to track him several months after allegedly committing this offence. There is no evidence of warrants or summons issued against him. 36.Regarding interference with witnesses, the defence’s argument that the witnesses are unknown is not factual, as the names are listed in the Information (charge sheet), which the accused persons are entitled to be supplied with. 37.Considering all the circumstances of this case, this Court makes the following orders:-1.There cannot be a consolidation on bonds as the prosecution has not consolidated this case with HCCR No. E021 of 2026.2.The 1st Accused ( Richard Wanjara Juma) is denied bond at this stage.3.The 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused are each admitted to a bond of Kshs. 1,000,000/= with one surety of a similar amount or cash bail of Kshs. 500,00/=4.The 2nd , 3rd and 4th accused persons are to report at Salgaa Police Station once a month until further orders by this Court.5.They are prohibited from contacting any prosecution witnesses, either directly or through proxies.6.None of the Accused persons shall leave the jurisdiction of this Court without leave of the Court. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.PATRICIA GICHOHIJUDGEMs Anyumba for the StateMs Wandera for the 1st accusedMs Ngugi for 2nd accusedMr. Tum for 3rd accusedMs Molande for 4th accusedMs Macharia Faith for the complainants1st, 2nd ,3rd and 4th accusedErickson, Court Assistant