Republic v Wanjiku alias Jimmy [2025] KEHC 2221 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case 11 of 2023
Judge
DR Kavedza
The applicant failed to establish changed circumstances that would justify the review of the earlier denial of bail, as the original compelling reason (risk of interference with a vulnerable witness) still exists.
The High Court reviewed an earlier refusal of bail and granted bail after finding changed circumstances, including delay in trial and the applicant’s prolonged pre-trial custody.
The High Court at Kerugoya reviewed bail terms, allowing the accused to relocate to Kiamutugu, report at Kianyaga Police Station, and visit her children under supervision.
The court found that the applicant had already benefited from a previous reduction of bond terms, and no new or compelling circumstances had been demonstrated to justify a further review. The seriousness of the offence, the interests of the victim's family, and the need to ensure the applicant's attendance at trial weighed against reducing the bond or removing the surety requirement. The court emphasized that the bond terms were fair and not excessive, and that a surety was necessary to provide accountability should the applicant fail to attend court. The application was therefore dismissed f…
The High Court granted Sarah Rukia Gathuna bail after finding changed circumstances. Key prosecution witnesses had testified, reducing the risk of interference.
Republic v Kiparus & 2 others [2024] KEHC 1803 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case E017 of 2022
Judge
F Gikonyo
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate a clear change of circumstances since the initial denial of bail, particularly regarding the risk of interference with the minor witness. The court found that the likelihood of interference had not dissipated, as the minor remains a key witness and her residence situation is disputed. However, recognizing the constitutional imperative to facilitate rather than impede rights, the court ordered that the minor's testimony be expedited within 14 days. Upon the minor's testimony or further court directions, the accused persons would be eligi…
The court found that the accused had not been able to raise the bond amount set in the earlier ruling and that his circumstances, including his inability to meet the bond terms and his family's dependency on him, constituted sufficient grounds to review the bond terms. The court noted that a pre-bail report had previously been considered and was favourable. In the absence of any opposition from the State and considering the accused's continued incarceration due to inability to meet the bond terms, the court held that the application for review was merited and proceeded to reduce the bond amou…