Republic v Maina (Criminal Case 4 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 9845 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9845 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI CRIMINAL CASE 4 OF 2019 DKN MAGARE, J JUNE 25, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ PROSECUTOR AND ELIJAH GITHUI MAINA ............................................................................ ACCUSED RULING 1. Before me is the application dated 11.3.2026 presented by counsel for the Accused person seeking reinstatement of bail terms. 2. The Accused was charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. Vide the ruling of this court dated 17.9.2019, the court granted the accused a bond of Ksh. 500,000/= with one surety with a similar amount. The court also issued a condition that the Accuse person must attend all mentions and hearing unless his attendance is dispensed with. 3. On 3.3.2026, this court cancelled the bond and ordered the Accused person to remain in custody as trial continues. This was because he did not appear keen to proceed. Subsequently, the accused person filed an Application dated 11.3.2026 materially seeking for reinstatement of the bail terms. 4. The accused person’s advocate now depones on his behalf that the accused person failed to attend the hearing of 3.3.2026 since the advocate had not diarized the hearing and had other matters on the diary which he was dealing with, virtually in the office. 5. The Respondent was not opposed to the application. This court has to exercise discretion in accordance with the law. The court record shows that the accused person himself was present in court on 3.3.2026 when the matter was called out for hearing. As articulated by Sir Newham Worley P. in the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt Vs. R.(1957) E.A. 332: “ ... the court is not required at this stage to decide finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit, or whether if believed it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively: that final https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9845/eng@2026-06-25 1
page 1 of 2
determination can only properly be made when the case for the defence has been heard. It may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case” but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is ofiered by the defence.” 6. The Accused person herein had to enjoy his constitutional right to be released on reasonable bail terms unless there be compelling reasons to negate such bail or bond. The accused has given plausible reasons for release on bond. He is however warned not to play games. Consequently, bond is reinstated. Orders 7. In the upshot, I make the following orders: a. The Notice of Motion application dated 11.03.2026 is allowed. b. The accused’s bond is reinstated. c. Directions on further hearing shortly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NYERI THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-SIX. RULING DELIVERED PHYSICALLY IN COURT AND THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM. KIZITO MAGARE JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Maina for the Prosecution Mr. Ng’ang’a for the Accused Accused present Court Assistant – Martin M. D. KIZITO, J. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9845/eng@2026-06-25 2
page 2 of 2