[2025] KEHC 3129 (KLR)
The court found that the circumstances since the previous ruling on bail and bond had not changed sufficiently to warrant a review of the terms for the 2nd and 3rd accused persons. The testimony of PW1 was incomplete, and the trial had only just begun, making it premature to reassess the strength of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3129 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Kamau Njuguna; Defendant: Gideon Njoroge Kinungi; Defendant: Kennedy Njuguna Wambui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E008 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail/bond Terms
- Outcome
- Application for review of bail/bond terms declined.
- Judges
- MW Muigai
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Presumption of Innocence, Change of Circumstances, Review of Bail Terms
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Peter Kamau Njuguna
Defendant
Gideon Njoroge Kinungi
Defendant
Kennedy Njuguna Wambui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Bail/bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a review of the bail/bond terms for the 2nd and 3rd accused persons.
- 2 Whether the bail/bond terms previously set are reasonable in light of the evidence and constitutional provisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the circumstances since the previous ruling on bail and bond had not changed sufficiently to warrant a review of the terms for the 2nd and 3rd accused persons. The testimony of PW1 was incomplete, and the trial had only just begun, making it premature to reassess the strength of the prosecution's case or the appropriateness of the bond terms. The court emphasized that the right to bail is constitutionally protected but must be balanced against the interests of justice, including the risk of absconding and interference with witnesses. The pre-bail reports and the affidavit of the investigating officer did not persuade the court that a review was justified at this...
Court Disposition
Application for review of bail/bond terms declined.
Orders
- The application for review of bail/bond terms for the 2nd and 3rd accused persons is declined.
- The accused persons may renew the application after progress of the hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
Republic v Njuguna & 2 others (Criminal Case E008 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 3129 (KLR) (Crim) (6 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3129 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Case E008 of 2023
MW Muigai, J
March 6, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Peter Kamau Njuguna
1st Accused
Gideon Njoroge Kinungi
2nd Accused
Kennedy Njuguna Wambui
3rd Accused
Ruling
1. On 3/7/2024 Hon LJ L.Mutende delivered Ruling on bond/bail; 1st Accused person was denied bail/bond but 2nd & 3rd Accused persons were granted bail/bond of Ksh 3,000,000/- each with 2 sureties each.
2. On 13/2/2025, this matter proceeded for hearing with PW1 who testified but 1st Accused person’s Advocate was absent no reasons were advanced for the Court to consider nether was there Advocate holding brief. The hearing was adjourned to 5/5/2025and Deputy Registrar through Pro-bono Committee to appoint another Advocate for the 1st Accused person.
3. The 2nd Accused person’s Advocate Mr. Mokua applied for review of bond terms as per the evidence of PW1 circumstances changed.
4. The 2nd Accused was not identified and therefore the case against the 2nd Accused person was not a strong one. The object of bail /bond is to ensure that one attends Court. The 2nd Accused person has been in custody for the 3rd Year now and prayed for lenient terms of Cash bail.
5. The ODPP represented by State Counsel Ms. Tum opposed review of bail/bond terms as the reason for change of circumstances is not sufficient. PW1 testifiedbut was stood down and will be back to testify and the Court has not heard all her evidence. The delay of hearing the case was not caused by Prosecution or Defense. The Ruling on bail /bond was delivered on 3/7/2024 and there are no new developments as such to make review of bail/bond terms applicable.
6. Mr. Mokua for 2nd Accused person replied that the Ruling indicated that the 2nd Accused was eligible for bail/bond and Article 49 of the Constitution prescribes bail/bond is to be granted unless there are compelling reasons. The 2nd Accused person is presumed to be innocent until found guilty. Therefore, sought bond/bail reduction.
7. The law on grant of bond and bail is settled as enshrined in the Constitution and relevant legislation. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution grants bail for all offences, the gravity of the offences notwithstanding. That the presumption of innocence is enshrined in Article 50(2) of the Constitution. Section 123 of the CriminalProcedure Code allows the accused person to request for bail, and the court to grant it. These provisions do not limit the number of times request for bail or bond may be made as was stated in Republic Vs Ahmad Abolafathi Mohammad & Anor 2013 eKLR.
8. The Bail & Bond Policy Guidelines 2015 prescribe factors to be considered in granting or denying bail or bond and the process of effecting release of Accused persons on bail or bond to conduct criminal proceedings while out on bail or bond.
9. Grant of bail or bond or review of the bail and bond terms is a question of balancing act of protecting and upholding rights of Accused person(s) and victims. A person is presumed innocent until proved guilty by evidence through Court proceedings. To refuse bond might deprive an innocent person liberty who may later be found not guilty. The converse is that the person isreleased on bond risks the safety and security of potential witnesses or interference with evidence absconds or commits criminal offences.
10. In the instant case, the Court proceeding just begun PW1 was stood down and will be recalled and 1 witness’s evidence does not by and of itself give the full picture of the criminal proceedings and evidence thereof. It is premature. Therefore, circumstances have not changed to warrant review of bond and bail terms.
11. Secondly, further to the Affidavit filed by Investigation Officer with regard to arrest of the 2nd & 3rd Accused persons that remains on record, the ODPP objected to review of bond as circumstances have not changed.
12. This Court notes that already the Trial Hon Judge granted bond terms that are in the circumstances reasonable for now.
13. Thirdly, this Court read through the Pre-Bail Reports of the Accused persons and I am not persuaded the 2nd & 3rd Accused persons are eligible for review of bail /bond terms for now.
14. The application shall be renewed considered after progress of the hearing.
RULING DELIVERED SIGNED & DATED IN OPEN COURT IN CRIMINAL DIVISION -MILIMANI VIRTUALLY/PHYSICALLYON 6/3/2025M.W.MUIGAIJUDGE