Republic v Caesar Juma Wanyama

7. That contrary to what the Prosecution contends, the Accused has a place of abode and comes from Busia and local administration knows him. That there is no evidence of the accused being a flight risk tendered. 8. Finally, that act of mob justice was an illegality as the state has a duty to protect everyone. That if the Accused is admitted to bail, he will be safe and protected by the state. The Defence contended that I the Court is inclined to deny bail/bond, it should grant favourable terms 9. On record there is a pre-bail report dated 17th November, 2025 which assessed the Accused as a flight risk due to the magnitude of the ofience and hailing from a border town. There were inconsistencies noted. The Accused had indicated that he hails from Kakamega County Navakholo Sub-County but after contacting his parents, they indicated that he hails from Busia County, Nambale Sub-County. 10. That the parents also indicate that the Accused ran away from home ten years ago to an unknown destination and only found out that the accused was in remand upon being contacted by the probation officer. The local administration stated that although he knew the parents of the Accused, he could not vouch for the accused having moved from the area long ago. 11. That the accused family is unable to meet the bond terms for the accused being landless and lacking property. the victims’ family were against the release of the Accused on bail/bond terms. They believe inhuman actions were caried out by the accused against the victims including torture and rape while trying to retrieve important information to access their financial accounts. Analysis and Determination 12. I have considered submissions by both parties for and against bail/bond, the pre-bail report as well as the affidavit. 13. Kenya’s Constitution guarantees the right to bail under Article 49(1)(h), which provides that an arrested person has the right “to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.” 14. This Constitutional right is further reinforced by the Criminal Procedure Code under Section 123A which provides statutory guidance. It provides that; 1. 2. Subject to Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and notwithstanding Section 123 in making a decision on bail and bond, the Court shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances and in particular— a. Nature or seriousness of the ofience; b. The character, antecedents, associations, and community of the accused person; c. The defendants record in respect of the fulfillment of obligations under previous grant of bail; d. The strength of the evidence of his having committed the ofience A person who is arrested or charged with any ofience shall be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that the person; a. Has previously been granted bail and has failed to surrender to custody if released on bail, it is likely that he would fail to surrender to custody; b. Should be kept in custody for his own good. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2194/eng@2026-02-23 2

page 2 of 4

15. Kenya’s Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines direct Courts to determine whether compelling reasons exist to deny bail while applying the following considerations: i. The nature of the charge or ofience and the seriousness of the punishment to be meted if the accused person is found guilty ii. Character and antecedents of the accused person iii. The strength of the prosecution case iv. The failure of the accused person to observe bail or bond terms v. Likelihood of interfering with witnesses vi. The need to protect the victim or victims of the crime vii. The relationship between the accused person and potential witnesses viii. Child ofienders ix. The accused person is a flight risk x. Whether the accused person is gainfully employed xi. Public order, peace or security; and xii. Protection of the accused person 16. In this case, the Prosecution and the pre-bail report assessed the Accused as a flight risk citing the magnitude of the ofience, lack of a place of abode and his ties to a border town. The seriousness of the charges carries a potential death sentence under Section 204 of the Penal Code. 17. Courts have consistently held that that the gravity of the ofience and severity of the sentence may increase the likelihood of absconding, however, the mere fact that an Accused face a murder charges is not by itself sufficient reason to deny bail. The Court must assess the risks such as flight, absconding, interference with witnesses or public order concerns. 18. The Accused gave conflicting information regarding his place of abode with the local administration not being able vouch for him. This uncertainty of residence coupled with his ties to a border town carries the risk of flight and undermines the Court’s ability to ensure his attendance at trial. In Mwangi v Republic [2024] KEHC 9453 (KLR) bail was denied where the accused’s residence was uncertain, underscoring the importance of traceability. 19. There are also safety concerns for the Accused. The Defence insists that the accused is safe as his safety is guaranteed by the state. The Court cannot overlook the fact the Accused was subjected to mob justice. The Court cannot gamble with mob mentality, as community hostility presents a real and tangible danger to the accused if released. While the rights of the victim must be protected, the rights of the accused are equally safeguarded under the Constitution. If there is a slight risk of violation of the Accused person’s rights under the Constitution, the Court cannot overlook that risk. 20. The family of the victims also gave their views. While victims’ views are not determinative, they are relevant under the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines. Their opposition reflects genuine concerns. 21. The defence has sought lenient bail conditions proposing that the accused would avail contacts and surety to ensure attendance. The Court notes that the Accused’s family is unable to meet bond https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2194/eng@2026-02-23 3

page 3 of 4

terms which further complicates the imposition of reasonable bail conditions that would secure his attendance in trial. Without viable sureties the Court cannot be assured of compliance. 22. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Prosecution has tendered compelling reasons to warrant denial of bail. 23. The Accused is therefore denied bail and will remain in custody until this case is heard. It is so ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MOHOCHI S.M. JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2194/eng@2026-02-23 4

page 4 of 4