Republic v Kimani (Criminal Case 75 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 10459 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)

Republic v Kimani (Criminal Case 75 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 10459 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10459 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Case 75 of 2023 DR Kavedza, J July 9, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Peter Njoroge Kimani Accused Ruling 1.The accused, Peter Njoroge Kimani, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and remains in custody pending trial. 2.The made an oral application for release on bond pending trial. In support of the application, he swore an affidavit stating that he has been in remand custody since 19th December 2023. He contends that there have been numerous delays in the commencement and conclusion of the trial, resulting in a violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay. He relies on Articles 49(1)(h) and 50 of the Constitution and maintains that he is presumed innocent until proved guilty. He further states that he is not a flight risk, has a fixed abode, enjoys strong community ties, is willing to surrender travel documents and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court, and has no intention of interfering with witnesses. 3.The application is opposed by the prosecution through the replying affidavit of No. 81510 PC Earnest Kinyua, the investigating officer attached to DCI Dagoretti. The prosecution avers that the offence facing the accused is serious and that there is a real likelihood of absconding if he is released. It is further contended that the accused is well known to key prosecution witnesses and may threaten, intimidate, coerce or otherwise influence them. The prosecution also asserts that the accused lacks a fixed abode and that there is an ongoing dispute relating to property belonging to the deceased, including allegations that he remains in possession of the deceased's title documents. The prosecution therefore urges the Court to deny bond and continue holding the accused pending the conclusion of the trial. 4.The Court called for a pre-bail report. The report indicates that the deceased was an 87-year-old woman who lived alone on inherited family property and had accommodated the accused within her compound to assist her with daily errands and collection of rent. The victim's family opposes the accused's release on bond, expressing concerns regarding witness safety, possible interference with the deceased's property and the safety of tenants occupying the premises. 5.The area chief described him as law-abiding and recommended him for bond, subject to his relocation away from his extended family for his own safety. The investigative agencies, however, maintained their opposition to bond, citing the risk of witness interference and absconding. 6.The report notes that the accused's maternal aunt is willing to accommodate him in Gikambura should he be released. She expressed willingness to act as his contact person but indicated that she lacks the financial means to provide substantial surety. The report also notes that the accused suffers from epilepsy and is on medication. 7.The mental assessment report on record confirms that the accused is fit to stand trial although he suffers from epilepsy. 8.The matter shall proceed for determination of the bond application on the basis of the affidavits, the pre-bail report and the material placed before the Court. 9.Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution guarantees an arrested person the right to be released on bail or bond on reasonable conditions pending trial unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. The right is fundamental but not absolute. Under section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court must consider all relevant circumstances, including the likelihood of the accused attending trial, the possibility of interference with witnesses, the protection of victims, and the interests of justice. 10.The pre-bail report reveals that following the death of the deceased, a dispute arose between the accused and the deceased's extended family regarding ownership and control of the deceased's property, including rental premises and title documents alleged to be in the accused's possession. Further, the victim's family strongly opposes the accused's release on bond. Their concerns stem from the ongoing property dispute and the fact that the accused is well known to them and to several prosecution witnesses. They fear that his release may expose witnesses and tenants occupying the deceased's premises to intimidation, pressure, or other forms of interference. 11.The Court has considered the views of the local administration, which describes the accused as generally law-abiding and recommends his release on condition that he relocates away from his extended family. However, the investigative agencies maintain that the accused presents a risk of interference with witnesses and lacks a fixed abode, having previously resided in accommodation provided by the deceased. 12.The accused has proposed to reside with his maternal aunt in Gikambura. However, the pre-bail report indicates that his family lacks the financial capacity to provide meaningful sureties and that the proposed arrangement is dependent entirely upon relatives who possess no substantial means of securing his attendance in court. 13.The Court is satisfied that the issue of witness interference is not merely speculative. The accused was closely associated with the deceased, her family members, tenants, and other persons likely to testify during the trial. The unresolved dispute concerning the deceased's property creates a real possibility of contact with, and influence over, potential witnesses. The likelihood of interference is therefore heightened by the relationship between the accused, the witnesses, and the subject matter of the dispute. 14.The Court has also considered the accused's medical condition. The material before the Court confirms that he suffers from epilepsy and is on medication. However, there is no evidence that his condition cannot be effectively managed while in custody. To the contrary, the records indicate that he has been receiving treatment and appropriate medical attention during his remand period. His medical condition therefore does not constitute a basis for release on bond. 15.Further, the Court notes that the accused has no established fixed abode of his own. Prior to his arrest, he resided on the deceased's property. In light of the existing dispute over that property, his return thereto would be impracticable and likely to exacerbate tensions between him and the deceased's family. The absence of a stable and independent residence increases the risk of non-attendance and undermines the effectiveness of bond supervision. 16.While the Court is mindful of the period already spent by the accused in remand custody, the interests of justice require a careful balancing of his constitutional rights against the need to protect witnesses and preserve the integrity of the trial process. The seriousness of the charge, the absence of a fixed abode, the unresolved property dispute, and the likelihood of interference with witnesses who reside within the same locality constitute compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution. 17.Consequently, I am satisfied that the prosecution has established compelling reasons warranting the continued denial of bond at this stage. The application for release on bail or bond is hereby declined. 18.The accused shall remain in custody pending the hearing and determination of the case. The prison authorities shall continue to ensure that he receives appropriate medical treatment and medication for his epilepsy while in custody.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.....................................D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Mutuma h/b for Ms. Timoi for the ProsecutionAccused presentKarimi Court Assistant.