Republic v Odendo & another (Criminal Case E2141 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 49 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court denied bail to an accused who absconded earlier, showing Kenyan courts detain flight risks while allowing trials to proceed without absconding co-accused.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Suitability of the 1st accused for cash bail and bond
The 1st accused was found unsuitable for both cash bail and bond; she is a flight risk with poor community ties and must remain in remand custody pending trial
The court relied on a pre-bail report dated 21/01/2026 which found that the accused had previously absconded from police cash bail, left Nakuru to evade the charges, had no known employment, was regarded by neighbours as a trouble maker, and had several prior assault matters resolved by the local administration. The court balanced her right to liberty against the need to secure her attendance at trial and found the risk of flight a compelling reason to detain her.
Proceedings in the absence of the 2nd accused who did not enter a plea
Since assault under section 251 is a misdemeanour, proceedings may continue in the absence of the 2nd accused, who is presumed to have entered a plea of not guilty
Both accused absconded before plea. The 2nd accused remained at large. The court noted that assault under section 251 of the Penal Code is a misdemeanour, permitting proceedings to continue in his absence, and presumed a plea of not guilty. Warrants for his arrest and forfeiture orders remain in place.
Welfare of the child living with the 1st accused
The court directed that a P & C file be opened and taken before the Children Court so the child may be rejoined with his father and siblings
The pre-bail report disclosed that the accused, a mother of three, stayed with only one child, the others being with their father due to domestic differences. Anticipating her remand custody, the court directed intervention through the Children Court to secure the child's welfare.
Legal principles established
#- In bail and bond determinations, the court must weigh the accused's right to liberty against the need to ensure attendance at trial
- A demonstrated history of absconding and evading the court's jurisdiction is a compelling reason to deny bail and bond
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st accused (Roseline Odendo) found unsuitable for cash bail and bond on account of being a flight risk and having poor community ties
- 2.The 1st accused to remain in remand custody pending trial, unless a change in circumstances arises
- 3.A P & C file to be opened and taken before the Children Court for the child remaining with the 1st accused, who may be rejoined with his father and siblings
- 4.Hearing scheduled for 13/3/26
- 5.Prosecution to supply the defence with witness statements in good time before the hearing
- 6.Certified copy of the ruling to be supplied to the defence
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 251 of the Penal Code (criminal jurisdiction over assault causing actual bodily harm); bail and bond determination under criminal procedure law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Odendo & another (Criminal Case E2141 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 49 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Assault Contrary to Section 251 of the Penal Code (Nakuru Court, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/49/eng@2026-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.