REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYAMIRA HCCR NO 22 0F 2015 REPUBLIC..............................................................STATE -VERSUSEZEKIEL OGANGA NYAMWARO.......1ST ACCUSED PETER NYANGERI ONDIGO..............2ND ACCUSED RULING By the ruling of this court delivered on 10th December, 2015, the application for bond by the two accused persons, EZEKIEL OGANGANYAMWARO and PETER NYANGERI ONDIGO, was rejected by the court. On 7thNovember, 2017, Counsel H. Kaburi, holding brief for Bwonwonga made a fresh application to review the ruling of 10th, December, 2015. The Respondent – the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)Mr. Ochieng’ had no objection to the court reviewing the ruling, especially in the light that the hearing of this case has never taken off as a result, the two accused have been in custody for over five years. The accused have rights and those rights must not be overlooked. The Constitution grants these rights to them; See 49 (1) (h.) Accordingly, the two accused persons are hereby granted personal bond of Ksh. 1,000,000/= with two sureties each, the same to be approved by the Honourable Court. I wish to add that should they interfere with the witnesses, then their bond will be cancelled forthwith and the sureties would be called to account. The accused persons must attend court every month for the mention of their case without failure. Any one default the bond would be cancelled forthwith and the sureties made to account. The first such mention to be on 14th December, 2017. Orders accordingly. Dated and delivered at Nyamira High Court this 14thday of November, 2017. C. B. NAGILLAH JUDGE In the Presence of:Bwonuong’afor both accused persons. Ochieng’for the Respondent MercyCourt Clerk
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.