Republic v Lavuna (Criminal Case E1682 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 193 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 193 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE NAKURU LAW COURTS CRIMINAL CASE E1682 OF 2025 PA NDEGE, SPM JUNE 2, 2026 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... PROSECUTION AND ALFRED WEKESA LAVUNA ..................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person has moved this Court seeking to be admitted to bail/bond in the pending trial. This application is anchored on Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which guarantees an arrested person the right to be released on bail/bond on reasonable conditions pending charge or trial unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. The prosecution has opposed this application. I have considered the application, submission s of both parties and the applicable law. Issue for Determination 2. The sole issue for determination is whether the prosecution has established compelling reasons suficient to warrant the denial of the accused’s constitutional right to bail or bond. Analysis and Determination 3. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution grants every arrested person the right to be released on bail or bond on reasonable conditions unless compelling reasons are shown. The burden of proving the existence of such compelling rests upon the prosecution. 4. This Court is guided by the decision in Republic vs Joktan Mayende &3 others [2012] eKLR, where the court held that compelling reasons are reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel strongly that the accused should not be released on bail or bond. The Court further observed that bail should not be denied on fiimsy grounds but on real cogent grounds that meet the constitutional threshold. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/193/eng@2026-06-02 1
page 1 of 2
5. In the present application, the prosecution has not demonstrated any forceful or convincing reasons warranting the limitation of the accused’s constitutional right to liberty. No evidence has been placed before the Court showing that the accused is likely to abscond, interfere with witnesses, obstruct the course of justice or otherwise prejudice the fair conduct of the trial. 6. Accordingly, this Court finds that no compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution have not been established. The accused is therefore entitled to be admitted to bail or bond on reasonable terms pending trial. 7. The Court is further guided by the Constitutional presumption of innocence under Article 50(2)(a) of the constitution that states, “unless proven guilty, the accused remain innocent in the eyes of the law and is entitled to enjoy his liberty unless lawful grounds for limitations are established”. Orders 8. 9. Accordingly, the application for bail is hereby allowed. The accused shall be released upon depositing a cash bail of Ksh 20,000. The accused shall further: a. Attend court whenever required until the conclusion of the case. b. Not contact, threaten, intimidate or interfere with prosecution witnesses. c. Notify the Court of any change of residence and d. Comply with any further directions issued by the court. Failure to comply with the above directions shall result in the cancellation of bail. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 HON ALOYCE PETER-NDEGE SENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE In the presence of; Court interpreter: Micah Prosecution Counsel: Macharia Accused person. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/193/eng@2026-06-02 2
page 2 of 2