https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7132

Republic v Ngolia (Criminal Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7132 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7132 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nanyuki Criminal Case E011 of 2025 JN Kamau, J May 7, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Dickson Ngolia Accused Ruling 1.The court has considered the submissions of the Accused person and those of the counsel for the State, the Affidavit Opposing Bail of No 260097 PC Kefah Nyagwencha that was sworn and filed on 29th December 2025, the response by the Accused person counsel dated 2nd January 2026 and filed on 6th January 2026 and the Pre-Bail Report of Loreen Mwalo, Probation Officer Laikipia County that was dated 24th February 2025. 2.According to the Pre-Bail Report, the Accused person understood the seriousness of the Charge and legal consequences if he was convicted. The victim’s family and the community were not opposed to the Accused person being granted bail. He was deemed to be respectful to local authority, hardworking and reliable, adhered to communal norms and was well integrated into local social structures. 3.He lived and assisted his parents and his younger siblings who were in school. Prior to his arrest, he had secured admission to Igoji Teachers Training College where he was scheduled to report in September 2025. He was also enlisted for recruitment with Kenya Defence Forces but was not able to proceed due to the pendency of the current case. He previously operated a pool table business and worked as a boda boda rider at Doldol town. He served as the Secretary of the boda boda rider’s association in Doldol for a period of one (1) year prior to his arrest. 4.The Probation Office recommended that he be granted bail as he had demonstrated the characteristics of a responsible individual with strong familial, residential and community ties with no previous criminal conduct. 5.On its part, the Prosecution opposed him being granted bail/bond. In his Affidavit Opposing Bail, the Investigating Officer stated that the Accused person had no familial ties or economic ties. He also expressed fear that the Accused person might interfere with investigations and witnesses since his accomplices were still at large and witnesses came from the same area that he resided in. 6.Notably, specific instances of or likelihood of interference with witnesses had to be laid before the court with such succinct detail or evidence in support thereof as to persuade the court to deny an accused person bail/bond. The Prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show that the Accused person was in contact with the alleged accomplices or that he had interfered with witnesses. 7.Going further, it was the considered view of this court that seriousness of the offence and sentence was not a compelling reason to deny an accused person the constitutional right to bail. Although the Judiciary Bond and Bail Policy 2015 listed the seriousness of the offence as a factor to be considered, courts were called upon not to lose sight of the fact that Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 granted an accused the right to bail irrespective of the seriousness and the nature of the offence. 8.Further, the perceived strength of the prosecution’s case was also not a compelling reason to deny an accused person his constitutional right to bail. The Accused had a constitutional and legal right to the presumption of innocence until and unless proven guilty to the required standard. 9.More substantive factors that courts were required to consider when granting bail/bond included the accused person being a flight risk, the attitude of the community to an accused person and character of the accused person. 10.It was evident that the Accused person had a fixed abode at Seek village, Laikipia North where he lived with his family. He had familial, economic and communal ties. Indeed, the community were not opposed to him being granted bail/bond. He was , therefore, not a flight risk as he had a fixed place of abode and the environment was not hostile but was receptive to him. 11.It was the considered view of this court that there were no compelling reasons to deny the accused person his right to bail/bond at this time as the Respondent had urged. Disposition 12.Accordingly, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Accused person’s application for bail/bond be and is hereby allowed. The Accused person be and is hereby released on a person bond of Kshs 300,000/= and a surety of a similar amount. 13.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY 2026J. KAMAUJUDGE