Case ID:185620

Republic v Felister Cherono Yegon [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Criminal Case E010 of 2021

Parties:

Republic v Felister Cherono Yegon

Date Delivered:

17 Nov 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Bomet

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Roseline Lagat-Korir

Citation:

Republic v Felister Cherono Yegon [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Counsel Mr. Mugumya

Mr. Murithi for the DPP

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Bomet

Advocates:

Counsel Mr. Mugumya

Mr. Murithi for the DPP

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

Case Outcome:

Accused released

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT BOMET

CRIMINAL CASE NO. E010 OF 2021

REPUBLIC...............................................................................................PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

FELISTER CHERONO YEGON..................................................................ACCUSED

RULING

1. Felister Cherono Yegon (Accused) is facing trial for the murder of one Amos Kipngetich Cheruiyot. According to the information dated 22

nd

June 2021, the offence was committed on the night of 12

th

June 2021 at Chebirir village, Itembe location in Bomet Central Sub-County within Bomet County.

2. The Accused took plea on 8

th

July 2021 and denied the charge. The court directed the filing of a bail assessment report to aid in setting bond terms.

3. When the matter came up for pre-trial on 12

th

October 2021, Mr. Mugumya for the Accused urged the bond application. He submitted that the Accused was not a flight risk. He acknowledged that the Probation Officer’s Report dated 16

th

July 2021 was not favourable to the Accused. He however submitted that the report was inconsistent and that the court should not rely on it. Counsel further submitted that the family of the Accused had filed minutes of a reconciliation meeting between them and the family of the deceased in which they resolved to live harmoniously and to support the release of the Accused on bond pending trial for the sake of her minor children.

4. Mr. Murithi for the State submitted that the Probation Officer’s Report was contradictory. He however took no position on the application and left the matter to the discretion of the court.

5. I have considered the application. Bail is a Constitutional right granted by Article 49 (i) h of the Constitution which states:-

“an arrested person has the right to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.”

6. In this case two documents were presented before the court. The Probation Officer’s Report dated 16

th

July 2021 stated that the Accused was hitherto a responsible mother of five children. That she was a widow who had worked tirelessly to provide for her children and related well with members of the community. The Report went on to state that prior to the incident, the Accused had began engaging in alcohol abuse and had developed violent conduct. The report stated that the victim’s interviewed were still very angry and the local community was extremely hostile to her release. That she was rescued from a lynch mob by the police and her safety could not therefore be guaranteed. The Probation Officer was therefore hesitant to recommend the release of the Accused on bond.

7. The document filed jointly by the family of the Accused and that of the deceased were minutes of a joint meeting held on 28

th

August 2021 in which they raised concern that the minor children of the Accused were suffering greatly and resolved to support her release on bond pending her trial.

8. I have considered the application. The material before me supports the view that the Accused is not a flight risk. It is trite that the primary purpose of bail is to secure the Accused’s attendance at trial [See

Jaffer V. Republic 1973 E.A. 39

;

R. V. Patius Gichobi Njagi & 2 Others (2013) eKLR

]. In this case therefore the primary purpose is likely to be satisfied.

9. With respect to the Accused’s safety, I observe that the bail assessment report dated 16

th

July 2021 was prepared soon after the alleged murder of the deceased. It is expected therefore that the community was enraged by the death and the possibility of the Accused being harmed was not speculative but real. It is apparent from the family meeting documented in the minutes filed in court on 5

th

October 2021 that tempers had cooled and there was no risk that the safety of the Accused would be jeopardized as harmony in the community had been restored.

10. I observe further that the State raised no opposition to the application. I therefore find no compelling reason to deny the Accused bail. She is released on the following conditions:-

(i) The Accused shall execute a personal bond of Kshs.300,000/= and provide 1 surety of similar amount.

(ii) She shall not interfere with prosecution witnesses in any way.

(iii) She shall attend court whenever required and shall not impede the trial in any way.

11. Orders accordingly.

RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021.

.................................

R. LAGAT-KORIR

JUDGE

Ruling delivered in the presence of the Accused, Defence Counsel Mr. Mugumya, Mr. Murithi for the DPP, and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).