Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Republic v Ajuoga (Criminal Case E2488 of 2024) [2024] KEMC 85 (KLR)

Republic v Ajuoga (Criminal Case E2488 of 2024) [2024] KEMC 85 (KLR) (10 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEMC 85 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE NAKURU LAW COURTS CRIMINAL CASE E2488 OF 2024 PA NDEGE, SPM DECEMBER 10, 2024 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND SAMWEL ODOYO AJUOGA ...................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. This ruling is a continuation of my earlier ruling dated 21st November 2024 on the application by the prosecution for compelling reason to deny accused person herein bond/bail. One prominent compelling reason was that the accused person herein is a fiight risk as he has no known place of abode and that chances of him jumping bail are high. 2. This court set out the principles for grant and or denial of bail/bond in my earlier ruling and it is therefore not necessary to repeat them herein. 3. This court however found the averments by the prosecution to be unchallenged but cautiously and diligently called for a pre-bail report form the probation department to verify the said averments. 4. In a comprehensive report dated 28th November 2024, the probation oficer confirmed that the accused person herein is indeed a fiight risk. That his place of abode is unknown. Thus the accused is highly likely not to stand his trial if released on bail; hence a compelling reason as held in S v Nyaruviro & another; (HB 262 - 17) HCB 12-17, XREF CRB 1454 A-B -17 (2017) ZWBHC 262; and the Kenya Judiciary’s bail and bond policy guidelines March 2015 at paragraph 25(a). 5. Accused person has raised no issue with the probation oficer’s report. He only insisted on being granted cash bail which is even more risky than a surety bond, especially to an accused person whose place of abode is unknown. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2024/85/eng@2024-12-10 1

page 1 of 2

6. I thus find a compelling reason to deny the accused person whose bond/bail and he shall remain in remand custody, unless another exceptional or unusual circumstances arises, which set themselves apart from the ones already canvassed in the application for refusal of bond/bail herein. DATED SIGNED & DELIVERED AT NAKURU IN OPEN COURT THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024. In the presence of:Janet C/interpreter Smith present for prosecution Accused person present HON. A. NDEGE - SPM Court - hearing on 28th May 2025 and mention on 24th December before the duty court. HON. A. NDEGE - SPM https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2024/85/eng@2024-12-10 2

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.