[2025] KEHC 3029 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants failed to present any material evidence or demonstrate changed circumstances that would warrant a review of the bail bond terms. The right to bail is subject to the accused's ability to attend trial and not evade justice. Since the original bail terms were set considering the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3029 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Prince Vistor; Respondent: Gideon Kipkoech Langat
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E030 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Review Bail Bond Terms
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SM Mohochi
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Murder Charge, Flight Risk, Presumption of Innocence
- 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
Prince Vistor
Respondent
Gideon Kipkoech Langat
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Review Bail Bond Terms
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons have demonstrated sufficient grounds for review of the bail bond terms.
- 2 Whether there are changed circumstances to warrant a revision of the bail or bond terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants failed to present any material evidence or demonstrate changed circumstances that would warrant a review of the bail bond terms. The right to bail is subject to the accused's ability to attend trial and not evade justice. Since the original bail terms were set considering the prosecution's opposition and the accused's perceived flight risk, and no new evidence or circumstances were presented, the application for review lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of bail bond terms is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Republic v Vistor & another (Criminal Case E030 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 3029 (KLR) (12 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3029 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Case E030 of 2024
SM Mohochi, J
March 12, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Prince Vistor
1st Accused
Gideon Kipkoech Langat
2nd Accused
Ruling
1. The Applicants, Prince Vistor and Gideon K. Langat, were charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 21st day of July, 2024 at Jawatho Village within Njoro Sub-County within Nakuru County murdered Nathan Patrick Emodo. The accused on 13th November, 2024 pleaded not guilty.
2. The Applicants are currently admitted to surety bond of kshs 1,000,000/- and in the alternate a cash bail of kshs 500,000/-.
3. Through his counsel on record Mr. Ooga Advocate, the 2nd Accused orally applied that the bail bond terms be reviewed as he has been unable to satisfy the same. A similar tangent was taken by Mr Owuor Advocate for the 2nd Accused person adopting the arguments and submission by the 2nd Accused person.
4. The application was opposed by the state with M/s Mwaura arguing that there are no changed circumstances to warrant review and that no material has been placed before Court to persuade the Court to review the terms set.
Analysis and Determination 5. Every accused person has the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence therefore should be released on bail or bond whenever possible. The main purpose of bail or bond is to ensure an accused attends Court for trial and not to seek to evade justice. In this instance the terms of bail bond as set was informed by the opposition to bail by the prosecution and the posture that the Accused persons were high flight risk.
6. This Court is however unpersuaded as to the merits of the Application as no material has been presented or laid out by the defence to show-case the inability by the accused persons to satisfy the bail bond terms subsisting or otherwise their ability to fulfil other terms as they may prefer.
7. I thus find the instant Application for review of bail bond terms to be without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2025Mohochi S.MJUDGE