Nine individuals charged with theft and property damage at Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi’s Timber XO club have petitioned the High Court in Eldoret to terminate their case or review their bond terms. The accused, who have been in custody for two months, claim they are unable to raise the required bond for their release due to their impoverished backgrounds.
The accused—Alfred Oloo, Ferdinand Lubisa, Annex Bornway, Martin Kabugi, Gideon Kiplimom, Joshua Majimbo, Brian Kimeli, Daniel Luta, and Brian Rotich—are among a group of 16 charged with various offenses, including theft, handling stolen property, and malicious damage. The charges relate to their alleged involvement in the looting of Timber XO club on June 25, during the Generation Z protests in Eldoret. While seven of the accused have managed to raise the bond and secure their release, the remaining nine have been unable to meet the bond terms of Sh300,000 each or cash bail of Sh200,000 each.
In their defense, the accused filed a petition through their lawyer, Kaira Nabasenge, requesting that the case be terminated as directed by President William Ruto. Alternatively, they have asked for the court to review their bond terms and issue personal bonds that would allow them to be released.
Justice Reuben Nyakundi, who presided over the matter, directed the accused to file individual affidavits explaining their financial inability to raise the bond. The court noted that a joint affidavit submitted by the accused was insufficient, as they are not members of the same family.
“You will have to file individual affidavits indicating the situation of each of them because they are not from the same family to have one affidavit for all of them,” Justice Nyakundi stated.
The accused, aged between 23 and 27, claim they come from poor families and have no income or means to meet the current bond terms. Their lawyer, Nabasenge, argued that the bond terms were harsh and disproportionate, considering the financial status of his clients. He emphasized that the accused have been in custody since their arrest on or around June 28.
Nabasenge urged the court to grant the accused personal bonds, which would allow them to secure their release under more favorable conditions. He pointed out that the chief magistrate’s court had initially granted them a personal bond of Sh1.25 million each, pending further investigations. However, the terms have proven impossible for the accused to meet.
“It is in the interest of justice that the bond terms be reviewed, and consequently, the applicants be granted personal bond terms on favorable terms,” Nabasenge said in his petition.
The prosecution, represented by Mark Mugun, opposed the application, stating that they had not been served with the accused’s application at the High Court. Mugun argued that Nabasenge had failed to seek a bond review at the lower court, which originally set the bond terms, and that the application to the High Court was premature. He also pointed out that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to withdraw the case, as no directive had been issued by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
“The High Court has no powers to withdraw the case, and I have not received any orders from the ODPP over the same,” Mugun stated. He further argued that the accused should have filed their application for bond review at the trial court before approaching the High Court.
In response, Nabasenge maintained that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the application, even though a review had not been filed at the lower court.
Justice Nyakundi directed that the case be mentioned on Thursday for further directions. The court is expected to decide whether the accused will be granted more lenient bond terms or whether their case will proceed under the current conditions.
The accused are alleged to have stolen alcohol and other goods worth Sh78 million during the Gen Z protests and caused malicious damage to property valued at more than Sh80 million at Timber XO club. They face serious charges that could result in significant legal consequences if found guilty. However, their defense rests on their inability to raise the hefty bond amounts set by the lower court.
