Yegon v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Revision E073 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 18933 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 18933 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KERICHO MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL REVISION E073 OF 2025 JK SERGON, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 BETWEEN PETER KIPROTICH YEGON ................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The proceedings relating to Kericho CMCCRC No.E2581 of 2023, Republic v Vincent Kimutai alias Emmanuel & 6 others was placed before this Court for perusal and examination under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. This Court is mandated to examine the proceedings before the Subordinate Court in exercise of its supervisory power of Revision to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such Subordinate Court. 3. I have examined the aforesaid record and its apparent that one Yegon Peter Kiprotich stood as surety for the 2nd Accused namely: Edwin Kiplangat alias Law Courts and ofiered his Payslip as security. 4. The Accused, the Applicant herein stood surety for absconded. On 26th November, 2025, Hon. Munguti, Learned Senior Principal Magistrate committed the Applicant to imprisonment indefinitely until he produced the Accused Person. 5. It is obvious that the decision taken by the Learned Senior Principal Magistrate was made Contrary to Section 131 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no doubt that the applicant ofiered his Payslip as security. The Applicant was never issued with a Notice to Show Cause before being ordered to remain in custody. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18933/eng@2025-12-19 1
page 1 of 2
6. It is also apparent that no inquiry was conducted and the Applicant asked to explain his inability to trace the Accused who absconded. 7. No proceedings for forfeiture nor attempt to recover the penalty through attachment, which is the mandatory first step before imprisonment were done. 8. Indefinite committal meted out against the applicant is Contrary to Section 131 (4) which expressly limits imprisonment term to not more than six (6) months and only after forfeiture recovery mechanisms fail. 9. It is clear that the order directing Yegon Peter Kiprotich to remain in custody must be set aside. Consequently, the order issued on 26th November, 2025 is set aside and the applicant namely:- Yegon Peter Kiprotich should be set free forthwith. The law pertaining to dealing with sureties i.e. Section 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be strictly be followed while dealing with the Applicant going forward. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025. .…………………………… J. K. SERGON JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18933/eng@2025-12-19 2
page 2 of 2