The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has urged the Milimani Law Courts to deny bond to Brian Kiprop Kiplagat, who is facing extradition to the United Kingdom(UK) over the alleged murder of his girlfriend, Marianne Klonzi.
Through State Counsel JV Owiti, the prosecution argued that Kiplagat poses an extreme flight risk and should remain in custody pending the hearing and determination of an extradition application filed on June 24, 2026.
Owiti told the court that the respondent’s likelihood of absconding had significantly increased after learning that the United Kingdom had formally requested his extradition to face charges of murder, manslaughter, perverting the course of justice and fraud by false representation.
“The respondent is now aware that the United Kingdom has alleged that he killed his girlfriend. With the nature of the overwhelming evidence against him, his propensity to flee is at the very highest,” Owiti submitted.
The prosecution maintained that the UK had transmitted substantial evidence to Kenya, including witness statements, forensic findings, financial investigations, telephone data and CCTV footage, which allegedly link Kiplagat to the death of Klonzi and his departure from the United Kingdom shortly after the alleged offence.
Owiti urged the court to fast-track the extradition proceedings and issue custodial orders to keep Kiplagat in custody until the application is determined. He further argued that the seriousness of the murder charge was a key consideration in determining whether bail should be granted, citing previous court decisions which held that the gravity of an offence may increase the likelihood of an accused person absconding.
Addressing concerns raised by the defence over the respondent’s detention, Owiti argued that Kiplagat had not been arbitrarily held. He told the court that after his arrest on June 10, 2026, the respondent was presented before court on June 12, where custodial orders were lawfully granted under a miscellaneous application.
“The respondent is before this court through a judicial process. His detention has been sanctioned by the court and cannot be described as arbitrary,” Owiti submitted.
The prosecutor also argued that although the Constitution guarantees the right to bail, the right is not absolute and may be limited where compelling reasons exist. He told the court that releasing a person wanted by the United Kingdom over the alleged murder of his girlfriend would undermine the extradition process.
“In the circumstances, releasing him on bail when he faces surrender to the United Kingdom to answer to a murder charge would, I dare say, be reckless. The least restrictive measure is to deny him bail and fast-track the hearing of the extradition motion,” he said.
Owiti further submitted that the defence had failed to provide evidence supporting claims that Kiplagat has strong family and community ties in Kenya. He argued that such facts were within the respondent’s special knowledge under Sections 111 and 112 of the Evidence Act and that the burden of proving them rested with the defence.
However, defence lawyers Pius Oyoo and Nordeen Khagai urged the court to release Kiplagat on reasonable bond terms, arguing that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to justify continued detention. Oyoo told the court that Kiplagat had already been in custody since June 10 after a miscellaneous application seeking custodial orders was filed before another court. He argued that the respondent had spent approximately 19 days in custody before the extradition proceedings were instituted.
The defence dismissed claims that Kiplagat was a flight risk, insisting that he is a Kenyan citizen born in Eldoret with strong ties to the country.
“The respondent is a son of this soil. He was born here, went to school here and comes from a family and community in Kenya,” Oyoo submitted.
He explained that at the time of his arrest, Kiplagat was carrying an old Kenyan passport and a temporary travel permit because his previous passport had become obsolete. According to the defence, both the passport and the temporary permit were confiscated by immigration authorities upon his arrest, making it impossible for him to leave the country. The defence further argued that Kiplagat’s current passport remains with UK authorities and questioned why investigators had not established that fact despite having ample time to investigate.
Khagai also rejected claims that Kiplagat had attempted to flee Kenya, arguing that there was no evidence before the court showing he was escaping justice.
“He might as well have been travelling for tourism because there was nothing to warrant him fleeing. There was no arrest warrant from this country and he had stayed here for over a year,” Khagai submitted.
The defence maintained that the seriousness of the offences alleged against Kiplagat could not override his constitutional right to bail, emphasizing that every offence in Kenya is bailable and that he remains innocent until proven guilty. Counsel also faulted the prosecution for claiming that Kiplagat has no fixed place of residence, arguing that investigators had access to his biodata, family details and home address from the time of his arrest but had failed to verify the information.
The court is expected to rule on whether Kiplagat will remain in custody or be released on bond pending the hearing and determination of the extradition proceedings.
