https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7263

Republic v Karambu (Criminal Case E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7263 (KLR) (19 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7263 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Maralal Criminal Case E006 of 2026 LN Mutende, J May 19, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Lucy Karambu Accused Ruling 1.Lucy Karambu, the Accused, is charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. Particulars of the offence are on the 1st day of May, 2025 at around 2100hrs at Westland Estate, Archers Post township, Waso location in Samburu East Sub-County within Samburu County, murdered Robert Lolosoli (Deceased) 2.Upon arraignment she denied the information and now seeks to be released on bond pending trial. Article 49(1) (h) assures an accused person’s release on bond unless there are compelling reasons requiring that the person be incarcerated pending trial. It provides thus;(1)An arrested person has the right--(h)to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released. 3.the Constitution did not specify what entails compelling reasons but in Joktan Mayende & 3 others (2012) KEHC 5551 (KLR) the court stated that;“...the phrase compelling reasons would denote reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond. Bail should not therefore be denied on flimsy grounds but on real and cogent grounds that meet the high standard set by the Constitution.” 4.An accused person is perceived innocent until the contrary is proved. (See Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution) Due to this right to take away the accused person’s liberty, the prosecution must put forth cogent reasons 5.A pre-bail report was filed to enable the court determine the question of bail based on the Accused person’s background, views of secondary victims and the community at large. The secondary victims, sons of the deceased who was cohabiting with the Accused do not object to her release on bond. In conclusion the Probation Officer stated thus:“It is my conclusion that the accused’s application for bond/bail be granted with stringent conditions to ensure her court attendance” 6.Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that:(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)the nature or seriousness of the offence;(b)the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused person;(c)the defendant's record in respect of the fulfillment of obligations under previous grants of bail; and;(d)the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence;(2)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 and that if released on bail (whether or not subject to conditions) it is likely that he would fail to surrender to custody;(b)should be kept in custody for his own protection. 7.In Ng’ang’a v Republic (1985) KLR 451, Chesoni J (as he then was) stated that;“1.The court, in exercising its discretion to grant bail to an accused person under section 123(1) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75), should consider the following factors:a.In principle, because of the presumption that a person charged with a criminal offence is innocent until his guilt is proved, an accused person who has not been tried should be granted bail unless it is shown by the prosecution that there are substantial grounds for believing that:i.The accused will fail to turn up at his trial or to surrender to custody;ii.The accused may commit further offences; oriii.He will obstruct the course of justice.” 8.Notably, no affidavit was deponed by the Investigating Officer in opposition of bail. The learned Prosecution Counsel, Mr. Kimani, submitting on the report filed by the Probation Officer noted that the deceased having been a husband to the Accused stringent terms of bond are called for which should be imposed after witnesses will have testified, due to the close relationship. 9.In a repartee, learned defence counsel, Mr. Lanyasunya urges that submissions by the Prosecution Counsel are based on his reading of the file as opposed to the inquiry conducted by the Probation Officer. On that argument, an affidavit by the Investigation Officer would have sufficed as opposed to submissions from the bar. 10.Looking at the bail information report filed following the social inquiry conducted and assessment done thereto, the Accused is a widow whose husband died leaving her with 3 children, two of them are adults. The adults stay with their maternal uncle while the youngest in form 3 stays with her sister. She left her house in Meru going to reside at Archers post where the eventuality occurred upon the invitation of her brother. She did cohabit with the primary victim for two (2) years prior to the incident. The community at Archers post do not really know her. 11.The primary consideration in releasing an accused on bond is whether the individual will turn up for trial. It is stated that her family is supportive which will provide sureties since what has been placed before court is mere allegations, it cannot be a basis upon which the Accused should be denied bail. In the result, I grant the Accused bond on the following terms;i.The Accused be and is hereby admitted to bond of Kshs. 2,000,000 with two (2) sureties in a like sum.ii.The Accused shall relocate to stay in Meru at her maiden home during pendency of the trial.iii.The Accused shall not interfere with prosecution witnesses. 12.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.……………………L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE