https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11114

**** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU** **CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER E032 OF 2024** **-VERSUS-** **REPUBLIC ……………. .………………………………...….. ODPP** **VERSUS** **EZEKIEL SAKWA MWANGI *ALIAS* KWAME ……….. ACCUSED** **RULING** 1. The accused person has been arraigned in this court on information of **Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.** The particulars of the charge allege that on various dates and at various places within Nakuru County, he murdered Alice Ayuma, Virginia Njeri Mwangi, Florence Mueni Mwalimu and Vella Moraa Mogambi. He pleaded not guilty. 2. The Prosecution opposed release of the accused on bond/bail when the Defence Counsel made the Application on 9/9/2024. Upon hearing the parties on the bond/bail Application, the court dismissed the Defence Application by its Ruling delivered on 14/11/2024. The Accused now brings another similar application dated 16/4/2026 relying on an affidavit sworn by his Advocate (Mr Edwin K. Omwanza). Counsel deposes that among reasons for denial of bond or bail to the Accused was possible interference with witnesses. The court is told that crucial prosecution witnesses have since testified and the case is nearing conclusion. 3. It is further brought to the court’s attention that the Accused person is unwell and requires specialized care not available in prison. A letter from the Accused’s doctor in this regard is exhibited for the court’s perusal. Counsel for the accused also contends that his client is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. 4. The Prosecution Counsel (Daniel Wakasyaka) opposes the Application through an affidavit in reply. Reiterating the reasons earlier given in opposition to the Application, Counsel avers that the Accused is a flight risk as he doesn’t have a fixed place of abode . It is further stated that the safety of the accused cannot be guaranteed given public emotions over the multiple killings. The Prosecution also alludes to the seriousness of the charges and the weight of the evidence already adduced as factors the court ought to consider. The court is also told that trial is, in any event, almost over as only three prosecution witnesses remain to testify. 5. I have considered learned Counsel’s rival arguments on the application. **Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution** provides; **“An arrested person has the right-** **To be released on bond or bail, on reasonable grounds, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released”** **Concise Oxford Dictionary** defines **“compelling”** as **“forcing or obliging to do something; bring about by force or pressure.”** 1. **Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code** further stipulates thus;- **“(i) 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 –** 1. **the nature and seriousness of the charge;** 2. **the character antecedents associations and community ties of the accused person;** 3. **the defendant’s record in respect of the fulfilment of obligations under prevous grants of bail; and;** 4. **the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence.** 5. **A person who is arrested or charged with any offence shall be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that the person;-** 1. **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 faile to surrender to custody;** 2. **Should be kept in custody for his own protection.”** 6. As held in the case of **Ng’ang’a vs Republic (1985) KLR 451**, the primary consideration before deciding whether or not to release an accused or arrested person on bond/bail is whether there are sufficient safeguards to guarantee his attendance at trial. 7. If therefore there is convicing evidence that the accused person herein will not attend trial if released; or that he may interfere with witnesses; or he is a flight risk; or that his security is at risk because of hostility from the community he hails from as alleged by the prosecution, then these are among grounds for denial of bond/bail [(see case law in **Republic vs Wanjiku & Another (criminal case No. E002 of 2024 [2024] KEHC 4663 (KLR) (2 May 2024) (Ruling)** among many other decided cases]. 8. As noted in the court’s earlier Ruling, the evidence showing that the Accused has no fixed place of abode and that he once escaped from prison has not been rebutted. Further considering the multiplicity of the charges and severity of sentence upon conviction, I find no basis to review the court’s decision denying the Accused bond/bail. Prison Officers have the responsibility of ensuring that the Accused gets medical care in or out of the prison if he falls sick. 9. In the premises, the Application is dismissed. 10. Ruling accordingly. **J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.** **Ruling delivered virtually this 14th day of July, 2026.** **In the presence of:** **The Prosecution Counsel, Mr Wakasyaka.** **The Accused’s Counsel, Mr Omwanza.** **Accused person.** **Mr. Wangara Advocate for the Deceased’s families** **The Court Assistant (Jeniffer).** **J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.**