Dennis Owino Okoth v Republic

8. The Accused person is not at risk or threat to the public and will not interfere with witnesses; he will reside in Siaya with his parents who are willing to stand surety for him. 9. The Accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty, the Investigation Officer has not filed any Affidavit opposing Bail/bond and he has a family to look after and will comply with any conditions set if granted bail/bond. ODPP Submissions 10. The Affidavit opposing bail/bond filed by Investigation Officer PC Makau Maitha; the compelling reasons the Accused person is a flight risk and likely to interfere with witnesses and relied on the cases Republic v Shikuku alias Ben [2022] eKLR & Republic v Fredrick Lelman & 4 Others [2019] eKLR Pre-bail Report 11. The Family of Accused person was positive and ready to assist him and his background is that he underwent formal education and engaged in casual jobs was married with 1 child. 12. The Victim’s family is opposed to grant of bail/bond; the family is still grieving, the Accused person’s accomplices are well known and still at large not yet arrested. There is possibility of interfering with witnesses as they are from the same area. He is also a flight risk. 13. The Chief stated that Accused person is not of good character, it is the 3rd Time he is suspected of such incidents, earlier, he escaped to Kariandusi where he was arrested. He is a flight risk. Determination 14. This Court considered all reports pleadings and submissions filed by parties/Counsel on bail bond application for the Accused person. 15. The Investigating Officer deposed in the Affidavit that the Accused person is [alleged] to have committed the offence of murder to the deceased/victim among a gang of 4 men, the accomplices are still at large. Secondly, some witnesses are neighbors and would be threatened or intimidated by the Accused person. Thirdly, after the offence occurred, the Accused person fled and on 11/11/2024, almost 3 months later, with the help of an Informer, the Accused person was traced at his hiding place at Baba Dogo area in Kasarani where he was arrested. 16. The Pre-bail Report also raised negative character traits from the Chief and victim’s family. Republic v Dwight Sagaray & 4 others 2013 eKLR, the court stated that “ For the prosecution to succeed in persuading the court on this criteria, it must place material before the court which demonstrate actual or perceived interference. It must show the court for example the existence of a threat or threats to witnesses; direct or indirect, incriminating communication between the accused and witnesses; close familiar relationship between the accused and witnesses among others.” 17. Republic v Richard David Alden (2016) eKLR Lessit J (as she then was) explained the bail bond policy guidelines and also stated that the interests of the accused should be balanced with other competing interest. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19294/eng@2025-12-15 2

page 2 of 3

18. In Fatuma & another v Republic [2023] KEHC 25773 (KLR), the High court held that : “ Proven interference with witnesses is an affront to the administration of justice and therefore a compelling reason contemplated by article 49 (i) (h) of the Constitution.” 19. In Republic v Mayende & 4 Others Bungoma High Court Criminal Case No. 55 of 2009, , the court stated that :“ - In all civilized systems of court, interference with witnesses is a highly potent ground on which the accused may be refused bail. It is a reasonable and justifiable limitation of right to liberty in law in an open and democratic society as a way of safeguarding administration of justice; undoubtedly a cardinal tenet in criminal justice, social justice and the rule of law in general, as envisioned by the people of Kenya in the Preamble to the Constitution of Kenya, 2010……Threats or improper approaches to witnesses, although not visibly manifest, as long as they are aimed at influencing or compromising or terrifying a witness either not to give evidence, or to give schewed evidence, amount to interference with witnesses; an impediment to or perversion of the course of justice…if the interference is aimed at impeding or perverting the course of justice, and if it is so found, it is a justifiable reason to limit the right to liberty of the accused.” 20. I find the Accused person’s disposition at this stage adversely impacts his right to grant of bail /bond at this stage as the Prosecution proved compelling reasons as the accomplices are still at large, the Accused person’s release might hinder arrest of accomplices; the Accused person, absconded after offence occurred and was arrested close to 3 months later and witnesses are well known and live nearby and threat intimidation or interference is a real possibility. He is a flight risk. Disposition 21. Bail/bond denied at this stage until crucial witnesses testify and/or arrests of accomplices executed if possible 22. The prosecution to expedite hearing especially of crucial witnesses 23. Thereafter, bail/bond application be renewed or if new developments arise. RULING DELIVERED DATED & SIGNED IN OPEN COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION MILIMANI ON 15/12/2025 VIRTUALLY/PHYSICALLY M.W. MUIGAI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19294/eng@2025-12-15 3

page 3 of 3