https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9997

Juma v Republic (Criminal Revision E105 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9997 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9997 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Makadara Criminal Revision E105 of 2025 J Wakiaga, J June 23, 2026 Between Seif Nyamai Juma Applicant and Republic Respondent (Being a revision from the original decision of the Chief Magistrates Court at JKIA in criminal case no E014 of 2025) Ruling 1.The applicant was charged with the offence ed of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to section 4(a) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances (control) Act No 4 of 1994 the particulars of which were that on the 11th day of December 2024 at Tahmeed Bus Company booking office Bungoma County jointly with others nlot before the Court trafficked in narcotic drugs namely cannabis to wit 43000 grams with a market value of kshs 1,290,000 by conveying , concealed in three traveling bags in contravention of the Act . 2.He pleaded not guilty and by a ruling dated 7th November 2025 , the trial court declined to grant the applicant bond/bail and in doing so stated thus :“11.In this instance, the court relied on the fact that though the details are not disclosed , the accused has a similar case pending in Voi Law Courts. This is an antecedent and compelling reason in the eye of this court to justify denying Seif release . 12.I am alive to the fact that under Article 50(2) (a) of the Constitution , Seif is innocent in the case before this court and in Voi Law Courts until proven guilty. But it cannot be that an accused person pout on bond or bail can commit as many similar offences as those in the charge that had him arraigned and the court stands by wringing its hand and shrugging shoulders because of the right of an accused person under Article 50. The court has a duty to ensure that the criminal justice system functions in the most balanced way both for the accused and for those seeking justice “ 3.Being aggrieved by the said determination the applicant sought the order of review on the basis of section 123(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and sought to b e released on affordable /lenient bond terms. 4.The application was supported by his annexed affidavit in which it was deposed that he is a family man with one school going child and unemployed wife and aged parents who depended on him for their daily up keep. 5.It was deposed that his health had since deteriorated having been diagnosed with diabetic and chronic ulcers and that he was not granted an opportunity to rebut the affidavit in opposition to bond sworn before the trial court to the extent that Kenyan boarders are porous and that he may escape unnoticed and that he lives and conduct illicit business. 6.He deposed that he has a permanent place of abode at his rural home in Mutomo Kitui County and that he has a similar offence at Voi Court in Cr No E471 of 2024 where he was granted a cash bail of Kshs 50,000 pending trial. SUBMISSIONS 7.When this matter came up for hearing before me, Mr. Hamisi appeared for the applicant and submitted that the applicant was denied bond base on the fact that there was a case in Voi where he was granted cash bail and has been attending court and that his arrest on the present charge was based on mistaken identity since the drugs were found in a bus. He was not charged with possession. 8.Ms Ogega for the prosecution conceded that she had not put a response but relied on the affidavit by the IO before the trial court and stated that the court was correct in finding that if released the accused will commit other offences. Determination 9.Section 123(3) of the CPC gives an accused who has been denied bond a right to approach this Court for review and section 362 of CPC gives the court the powers to call for under its supervisory jurisdiction the records of the trial court so as to satisfy itself as to the correctness of the decision and or order thereof. 10.In this matter it is not in dispute that the trial court declined to grant the applicant bond on the basis that while on bond granted by a Court in Voi a fact which the applicant admitted , he is currently facing a similar offence before the court and is therefore to the courts mind, a kin to what Sir Edward Clay then the High Commissioner of Britain to Kenya said on corruption in Kenya in 2004 “ they may expect we shall not see, or notice or will forgive them a bit of gluttony because they profess to like OXFAM lunches. But they can hardly expect us not to care when their gluttony causes them to vomit all over our shoes ….”. 11.However, in the same breath the court as stated herein above, the facts upon which she relied on in declining to grant the applicant bond were not disclosed. The terms of the said bond granted in Voi were also not disclosed and whereas the court relied on the antecedent of the accused to deny him bond the same was not disclosed and therefore compelling reasons advanced fell short of the required standard noting that they was no evidence so far tendered to show that the applicant herein is the same as the Ahmed of tell no 0735080023 who had booked the bus ticket on 11th day of December 2024, which facts are yet to be proved at the hearing. 12.Further the issue as to whether the applicant is a habitual narcotic trafficker who mostly source the illicit substances from western region of Kenya and transports them to the cost region is yet to be proved. 13.The accused contention that he should be released on health grounds finds no favour since it has not been demonstrated that he is unable to get the necessary medical attention while in remand custody. 14.It must be said without numbers that bond /bail is the rule with jail being the exception where compelling reasons are advanced. The accused shall therefore be released on the following terms and conditions:a.Bond of Kenya shillings five hundred thousand (kshs 500,000) with one surety of like amountb.In the alternative cash bail of Kenya shilling two hundred thousand (kshs 200,000) with two sureties of like amountc.The accused shall during the period of this trial not commit a similar offence, in default of which his bond herein shall stand cancelled without any further court order. 15.I have noted that this matter had been set for hearing from24th march 2025. If the same has proceeded for hearing then this order shall not take effect and the applicant was make the application before the trial court who shall be in the place to determine the same based on the strength of the prosecution case. 16.And it is ordered. SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026J. WAKIAGAJUDGEIn the presence ofCourt Assistant - IreneMs Kariuki for the stateMr. Hamisi for the applicant