Republic v William Mwangangi Raia Slias Willy

4. On 10/09/2025, an incident report was made by the deceased’s mother Josephine Ndinda at Machakos police station recorded under OB No.49/10/09/2025. On 12th September 2025 a postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Watenga at Machakos Funeral Home. The pathologist opined that the cause of death was massive bleeding secondary to stab wound injuries to the chest and abdomen. 5. That, after the commission of the ofience the accused fled into hiding where he constantly kept harassing the deceased’s immediate family through calls and messages. The harassment prompted the DCI to direct the homicide detectives to take over the case and find the culprit. Forensic investigations led to the arrest of the accused William Mwangangi Kaia on 28/10/2025 in Changamwe within Mombasa County. 6. During interrogation the accused led the detectives in recovery of the deceased’s mobile phone make Itel A70. Also recovered was the murder weapon, a blood stained-kitchen knife with a wooden handle (wrapped with black elastic band). The event of the incident is in public domain due to the wide coverage done by major media stations and has attracted emotions and the life of the accused person and that of his immediate family members may be put in danger if released. 7. That the accused person is well known to the deceased’s family as he was in a relationship with the deceased and thus, he may intimidate/threaten them. 8. That the accused has no permanent place of abode and may abscond if released on bond. 9. Further the accused person has several Airtel mobile phone numbers some of which are not registered under his names and are meant to conceal his identity and location and therefore making it hard to monitor his residence and whereabouts. 10. The charges the accused person is facing are serious and if found guilty he is liable to be sentenced to serve a long-term prison sentence, therefore there is higher likelihood and incentive for the accused person to abscond. 11. That, the release of the accused person on bond/bail pending the hearing and determination of the trial is not absolute and is at the discretion of this Honourable Court thus this Honourable Court is urged in view of the above reasons not to grant/release the accused person on bail. 12. In opposing the objection to bond/bail, the accused filed a Replying Affidavit dated 1st March 2026. The accused stated that on 28/10/2025 he was arrested by the police and has been held in remand custody at Machakos GK Prisons up to date. 13. On 21/01/2026 he was arraigned in Court for purposes of plea taking in respect to the charge of murder and a plea of not guilty was entered. On the said date the prosecution opposed his application to be granted bail/ bond and this honourable court directed the prosecution to file their affidavit in opposition to his bail/ bond application. 14. The accused further states that he understands the nature of the ofience he has been charged with and the seriousness of the punishment to be meted if found guilty. He respectfully states that Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution grants him 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. 15. That the constitutional standard for denying bail is the compelling reasons test and the burden is on the prosecution to establish the existence of the compelling reasons that would justify denial of bail. The accused avers that the pre-bail report dated 04/03/2026 indicates that he has no previous adverse records or known criminal history. The said pre-bail report further indicates the accused has a strong https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7071/eng@2026-04-13 2

page 2 of 4

family and community ties and the local administrator did not express any concerns regarding him attending court from within the community if granted bond and indicated no objection to his release. 16. The accused stated that the allegation by the investigating officer that he has no fixed place of abode is not true and if granted bail he plans to reside at his rural home in Kiaoni village in Makueni County. Also, that the allegation by the investigating officer that he possesses multiple phone numbers for purposes of concealing his identity or location is untrue and has not been supported by any evidence. 17. The accused asserts that he is not a flight risk and undertakes to attend all court sessions if granted bail/ bond. His family is willing to support him in securing the appropriate sureties to support his application to be released on bail/ bond pending the hearing and determination of this matter. That, he comes from a poor socio-economic background and respectfully pray that if bail/ bond is granted, the terms imposed be reasonable and within his means. 18. The accused submits that if granted bail/ bond he undertakes and is willing to comply with all bail/ bond terms and conditions that this honourable court may impose. Determination 19. The right to bail is both constitutional and statutory, the accused person has a constitutional right to be released on reasonable bail terms unless there is a compelling reason not to grant the accused person bail. The right to bail is entrenched in Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution which states as follows:“ 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." 20. As a Constitutional right, its enjoyment can only be limited if exceptional circumstances are established. In interpreting the right to bail, section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code CAP 75 Laws of Kenya sets the parameters for the grant of the right to bail. In Republic v John Kahindi Karisa & 2 others [2010] eKLR the court observed as follows; “ A murder suspect has a Constitutional right to be released on bail. This is an inalienable right and can only be restricted by the court if there are compelling reasons for him not to be released." 21. The Constitution does not define the term “compelling reasons”. However, there are several High Court cases that have deconstructed the phrase “compelling reasons” in Republic v Joktan Mayende & 4 Others Bungoma High Court Criminal Case No. 55 of 2009, the court defined the term “compelling reasons” as follows: “ The phrase compelling reasons would denote reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond. Bail should not therefore be denied on flimsy grounds but on real and cogent grounds that meet the high standard set by the constitution.” 22. In the case of Republic v Francis Kimathi [2017] eKLR, the court held that: “ There may not be a scientific measure of what exactly amounts to compelling reasons as that would depend on the circumstances of each case. Except, however, compelling reason should be a reason or reasons which is rousing, strong, interests, attention, and brings https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7071/eng@2026-04-13 3

page 3 of 4

conviction upon the court that the accused person should be denied bail. Flimsy reasons will not therefore do. Therefore, the standard is high for it draws from the constitutional philosophy that any restriction of rights and freedoms of persons must be sufficiently justified given the robust Bill of rights enshrined in the Constitution.” 23. In the instant case, I have taken cognizance of the fact that the Prosecution is opposed to the application for bail. The Prosecution contends that after the commission of the ofience the accused fled into hiding where he constantly kept harassing the deceased’s immediate family through calls and messages. The harassment prompted the DCI to direct the homicide detectives to take over the case and find the suspect. Forensic investigations led to the arrest of the accused William Mwangangi Kaia on 28/10/2025 in Changamwe within Mombasa County. The accused has not disputed this statement, he does not deny that he was arrested in Changamwe, Mombasa County. The question is why did the accused flee to Mombasa in the first place? 24. The above clearly raises fears of the accused fleeing from his known place of abode and disappearing to an unknown location if released on bond as he has previously done. 25. The investigating officer also stated that the event of the incident is in public domain due to the wide coverage done by major media stations and has attracted emotions and the life of the accused person and that of his immediate family members may be put in danger if he is released. 26. It is in the interest of the safety of the accused person and of his family that this bail application be held in abeyance until a further date. 27. It is trite law that Article 49 of the Constitution of Kenya provides that every ofience is bailable unless there are conflicting reasons not to grant bond. 28. Every accused person is also presumed innocent until proved guilty. 29. The pre bail report dated 04/03/2026 could be positive on the accused being granted bail, however, this court is persuaded that there are compelling reasons not to admit the accused person to bail at this point as demonstrated by the Prosecution. I hereby order that the accused to remain in custody during trial. The bail application to be reviewed at a future date. 30. In the meantime, the Prosecution Counsel to serve the Defence Counsel with the statements and all documents the prosecution will rely on in this case. RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 13TH APRIL 2026 NOEL I. ADAGI JUDGE DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 13TH APRIL 2026 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7071/eng@2026-04-13 4

page 4 of 4