Republic v Thairu & 2 others (Criminal Case E002 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 19283 (KLR) (19 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19283 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL CASE E002 OF 2022 DO CHEPKWONY, J NOVEMBER 19, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND LYDIA MUTHONI THAIRU ................................................................ 1ST ACCUSED KELVIN WAMBUGU NGONYO ......................................................... 2ND ACCUSED PATRICK KAMAU ................................................................................ 3RD ACCUSED RULING 1. 2. Vide a Notice of Motion application dated 2nd March, 2025, the Applicants seeks the following orders:a. That the Honourable Court be pleased to review the bail terms to grant the 3rd Accused/ Applicant a cash bail preferably of about Kshs. 50,000/=. b. That in the alternative the Honourable Court be pleased to review the bond terms to about Kshs 100,000/=. The Application is based on the grounds as set out on its face and the Supporting Affidavit of Patrick Kamau sworn on 2nd March, 2025. The Applicant averred that he was charged with the ofience of murder which he pleaded not guilty to and was released on a bond of Kshs. 1,000,000/= without the option of cash bail. According to the 3rd accused/Applicant, his family is unable to raise the bond terms given that the family land is still under the succession process and they do not have any other title deed that can be used as security or his release. He has urged the court to review the said bond terms and order him to be released on a cash bail to about Kshs. 50,000/= and a bond of Kshs. 100,000/=, which he says his family is able to raise. The Applicant/3rd accused further holds that he has a school going child who depends on him and his continued incarceration has deprived him of his duties as a father https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19283/eng@2025-11-19 1
page 1 of 3
and husband. He undertakes to ensure he attends all court proceedings until the matter comes to a logical conclusion. 3. The Applicant also filed an Affidavit of Means sworn by his father Peter Ndirangu Nderitu on 7th April, 2025. According to his father, he is a former Kenya Forestry Service Officer having retired on 1st July, 2021 and is only engaged in peasant farming which does not generate any income. The Applicant’s fate has gone on to depone that his only income is his monthly pension of Kshs. 4,116/= and an irregular income of his power saw of about Kshs. 3,000/= which brings his total income to Kshs. 7,116/=. He contends that he is willing to stand as surety and make efiorts to raise the cash bail pleaded for. 4. The Applicant also filed submissions dated 7th April, 2025 which in essence are basically a reiteration of his prayers as indicated in his application and Supporting Affidavit together with the Affidavit of Means. He has invited the court to rely on the authorities in Garissa HCCRA 14 of 2015, Republic versus Nimo Ibrahim Mohamud, Makueni HCCRC 119 of 2017, Republic versus Patrick Mutua Muema , Nairobi HCCRREV 1214 of 2018, Republic -v- Evans Ochieng Rachar and Nairobi HCCRC E046 of 2021, Republic versus Titus Kipchirchir Kirui where in all the cases the ofience the accused persons were charged with was Murder and the court granted each one of the bond of Kshs. 100,000/= with an option of cash bail of Kshs. 50,000/=. 5. The application was not opposed by the prosecution’s counsel. Determination 6. The court has considered the application of the 3rd accused person/Applicant, the Affidavit of means as filed by his father, alongside his written submissions and cited authorities and finds that the issue for determination is whether the prayer sought is merited. 7. It is trite that the purpose for an accused to be released on bail and bond is to secure his/her attendance in court as and whenever he is required to in accordance with the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines and Practise. It is meant to balance personal liberty with public safety so that an accused is assured of the presumption of innocence and any anytime to prefer for his defence. This is restated as a general guideline in Paragraph 4.9 of the said Guidelines as follows:“ In terms of substance, the primary factor considered by the courts in bail decision-making is whether the accused person will appear for trial if granted bail. A particular challenge the courts face since the promulgation of the Constitution of 2010 is determining the existence of compelling reasons for denying an accused person bail, particularly in serious ofiences.” 8. On 10th February, 2022 the court ordered each accused to be released on a bond of Kshs. 1,000,000/= with one surety of a similar amount without an option of cash bail. This was after a consideration of the circumstances surrounding the ofience. Having considered each and alongside the circumstances of this case, and since the application is unopposed, this Court proceeds to allow the Notice of Motion application dated in the following terms:a. The 2nd and 3rd accused persons may each be released on a bond of Kshs. 300,000.= with one surety of a similar amount; and or, b. In the alternative, the 2nd and 3rd accused may each be released on cash bail of Kshs. 100,000/=. c. The 2nd and 3rd accused to each provide particulars of their respective place of abode and contact persons. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19283/eng@2025-11-19 2
page 2 of 3
d. The 2nd and 3rd accused to attend court as and whenever they are required until the final determination of this trial. e. Failure to abode by Order (d) above, with no good or justifiable reason, the bond/bail terms shall be rendered cancelled and the non-compliance, accused remanded in custody till the determination of the trial. It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. D. O. CHEPKWONY JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19283/eng@2025-11-19 3
page 3 of 3